HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Bernie Sanders tells Demo...

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:27 AM

Bernie Sanders tells Democrats to back off primary attacks

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bernie Sanders is warning the Democratic Party not to attack its own candidates in primary battles, as happened in a Houston-area congressional race.

The Vermont senator said it's "appalling" that the party's congressional campaign arm targeted Laura Moser ahead of Tuesday's primary election. Moser, an activist, is endorsed by Sanders' Our Revolution group.

Sanders told The Associated Press on Wednesday that such attacks are "not acceptable."

Moser advanced to a runoff with Democratic front-runner Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, despite the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee publishing an opposition research memo calling her "a Washington insider who begrudgingly moved to Texas" to run for Congress.

Read more: https://www.mrt.com/news/texas/article/Bernie-Sanders-tells-Democrats-to-back-off-12736602.php



The linked source is the Midland Reporter-Telegram.

257 replies, 14369 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 257 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bernie Sanders tells Democrats to back off primary attacks (Original post)
TexasTowelie Mar 2018 OP
Skittles Mar 2018 #1
stonecutter357 Mar 2018 #2
brush Mar 2018 #3
Cha Mar 2018 #200
Post removed Mar 2018 #4
JCanete Mar 2018 #5
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #18
yurbud Mar 2018 #48
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #80
yurbud Mar 2018 #160
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #193
ehrnst Mar 2018 #213
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #201
Hortensis Mar 2018 #205
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #224
ehrnst Mar 2018 #231
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2018 #237
R B Garr Mar 2018 #243
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #244
R B Garr Mar 2018 #251
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2018 #226
Hortensis Mar 2018 #229
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2018 #230
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #206
ehrnst Mar 2018 #212
George II Mar 2018 #219
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #223
George II Mar 2018 #225
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #227
ehrnst Mar 2018 #233
ehrnst Mar 2018 #234
ehrnst Mar 2018 #235
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2018 #104
JCanete Mar 2018 #110
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2018 #111
JCanete Mar 2018 #113
LiberalLovinLug Mar 2018 #122
ehrnst Mar 2018 #214
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2018 #222
ehrnst Mar 2018 #232
JCanete Mar 2018 #246
JCanete Mar 2018 #238
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #228
JCanete Mar 2018 #245
ehrnst Mar 2018 #236
JCanete Mar 2018 #242
ehrnst Mar 2018 #249
JCanete Mar 2018 #252
ehrnst Mar 2018 #253
JCanete Mar 2018 #254
ehrnst Mar 2018 #255
JCanete Mar 2018 #256
ehrnst Mar 2018 #257
Sophia4 Mar 2018 #202
JCanete Mar 2018 #68
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #79
JCanete Mar 2018 #95
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #102
JCanete Mar 2018 #105
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #135
JCanete Mar 2018 #240
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #250
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2018 #106
JCanete Mar 2018 #107
Hortensis Mar 2018 #207
JCanete Mar 2018 #239
Joediss Mar 2018 #116
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #131
Mike Nelson Mar 2018 #6
murielm99 Mar 2018 #7
George II Mar 2018 #11
Jim Lane Mar 2018 #21
George II Mar 2018 #50
Jim Lane Mar 2018 #137
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #103
Hortensis Mar 2018 #209
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #215
Hortensis Mar 2018 #218
GaryCnf Mar 2018 #158
George II Mar 2018 #165
GaryCnf Mar 2018 #192
George II Mar 2018 #54
JCanete Mar 2018 #71
potone Mar 2018 #88
bettyellen Mar 2018 #157
JCanete Mar 2018 #161
bettyellen Mar 2018 #162
JCanete Mar 2018 #163
bettyellen Mar 2018 #164
JCanete Mar 2018 #166
bettyellen Mar 2018 #167
BoneyardDem Mar 2018 #178
Hortensis Mar 2018 #210
Jim Lane Mar 2018 #169
bettyellen Mar 2018 #174
Jim Lane Mar 2018 #176
bettyellen Mar 2018 #177
bucolic_frolic Mar 2018 #8
BootinUp Mar 2018 #9
George II Mar 2018 #10
shenmue Mar 2018 #12
ehrnst Mar 2018 #37
Me. Mar 2018 #89
JCanete Mar 2018 #75
George II Mar 2018 #78
JCanete Mar 2018 #99
George II Mar 2018 #109
JCanete Mar 2018 #112
George II Mar 2018 #114
JCanete Mar 2018 #125
George II Mar 2018 #127
JCanete Mar 2018 #139
Jim Lane Mar 2018 #141
grantcart Mar 2018 #100
Cha Mar 2018 #146
Cha Mar 2018 #147
yardwork Mar 2018 #13
Fullduplexxx Mar 2018 #14
comradebillyboy Mar 2018 #133
Cha Mar 2018 #151
ehrnst Mar 2018 #15
dlk Mar 2018 #16
lark Mar 2018 #20
Skittles Mar 2018 #72
JCanete Mar 2018 #76
sprinkleeninow Mar 2018 #156
Cha Mar 2018 #152
BannonsLiver Mar 2018 #180
Cha Mar 2018 #198
ehrnst Mar 2018 #221
Drahthaardogs Mar 2018 #17
Jim Lane Mar 2018 #22
jrthin Mar 2018 #58
Jim Lane Mar 2018 #134
lapucelle Mar 2018 #85
Cha Mar 2018 #154
riversedge Mar 2018 #179
Gothmog Mar 2018 #186
Gothmog Mar 2018 #188
babylonsister Mar 2018 #29
ehrnst Mar 2018 #30
babylonsister Mar 2018 #33
George II Mar 2018 #57
Jim Lane Mar 2018 #140
R B Garr Mar 2018 #196
ehrnst Mar 2018 #217
Jim Lane Mar 2018 #248
ehrnst Mar 2018 #93
Hassin Bin Sober Mar 2018 #216
ehrnst Mar 2018 #220
Drahthaardogs Mar 2018 #36
babylonsister Mar 2018 #38
Drahthaardogs Mar 2018 #40
MrsCoffee Mar 2018 #42
Cha Mar 2018 #199
George II Mar 2018 #65
Sunlei Mar 2018 #183
BoneyardDem Mar 2018 #90
DemocracyMouse Mar 2018 #56
Progressive dog Mar 2018 #19
samnsara Mar 2018 #23
Cold War Spook Mar 2018 #24
harun Mar 2018 #25
ehrnst Mar 2018 #26
harun Mar 2018 #31
ehrnst Mar 2018 #32
harun Mar 2018 #34
ehrnst Mar 2018 #35
harun Mar 2018 #39
ehrnst Mar 2018 #41
betsuni Mar 2018 #43
harun Mar 2018 #49
Agschmid Mar 2018 #51
harun Mar 2018 #62
ehrnst Mar 2018 #98
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2018 #108
Agschmid Mar 2018 #185
George II Mar 2018 #53
ehrnst Mar 2018 #115
ehrnst Mar 2018 #55
harun Mar 2018 #61
ehrnst Mar 2018 #64
harun Mar 2018 #66
George II Mar 2018 #69
harun Mar 2018 #73
George II Mar 2018 #77
harun Mar 2018 #81
George II Mar 2018 #83
harun Mar 2018 #136
ehrnst Mar 2018 #171
lapucelle Mar 2018 #191
ehrnst Mar 2018 #87
ehrnst Mar 2018 #82
ehrnst Mar 2018 #97
George II Mar 2018 #117
ehrnst Mar 2018 #119
murielm99 Mar 2018 #126
George II Mar 2018 #101
ehrnst Mar 2018 #121
George II Mar 2018 #124
Cha Mar 2018 #204
ehrnst Mar 2018 #45
rzemanfl Mar 2018 #52
Cha Mar 2018 #142
harun Mar 2018 #148
Cha Mar 2018 #149
BannonsLiver Mar 2018 #182
mcar Mar 2018 #170
Cha Mar 2018 #172
Bleacher Creature Mar 2018 #27
ehrnst Mar 2018 #28
yardwork Mar 2018 #44
Cha Mar 2018 #155
betsuni Mar 2018 #46
Cha Mar 2018 #173
QC Mar 2018 #47
Historic NY Mar 2018 #59
R B Garr Mar 2018 #60
radliberal Mar 2018 #63
Tom Rinaldo Mar 2018 #67
babylonsister Mar 2018 #74
potone Mar 2018 #86
murielm99 Mar 2018 #129
babylonsister Mar 2018 #132
Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #84
JCanete Mar 2018 #94
Gothmog Mar 2018 #187
JCanete Mar 2018 #91
BoneyardDem Mar 2018 #92
QC Mar 2018 #96
George II Mar 2018 #118
Tom Rinaldo Mar 2018 #120
George II Mar 2018 #123
Tom Rinaldo Mar 2018 #130
Jim Lane Mar 2018 #175
Jim Lane Mar 2018 #138
George II Mar 2018 #159
Jim Lane Mar 2018 #168
Gothmog Mar 2018 #189
Tom Rinaldo Mar 2018 #190
R B Garr Mar 2018 #194
ChiTownDenny Mar 2018 #70
EffieBlack Mar 2018 #128
njhoneybadger Mar 2018 #143
Cha Mar 2018 #144
Adrahil Mar 2018 #145
Cha Mar 2018 #150
RandySF Mar 2018 #153
Sunlei Mar 2018 #181
Cha Mar 2018 #247
Blue_Tires Mar 2018 #184
R B Garr Mar 2018 #195
Cha Mar 2018 #197
Eko Mar 2018 #203
crim son Mar 2018 #208
ucrdem Mar 2018 #211
janx Mar 2018 #241

Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:34 AM

1. alrighty then

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:37 AM

2. no !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:42 AM

3. Pot, meet kettle.

Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:08 AM

200. Well said..





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:46 AM

5. are you sure you got it right? What was the insult against her district? What was it she said? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 07:58 AM

18. She also funnelled money...50,000 into her husband's consulting firm. I don't think she can win.

The DCCC may have been a bit heavy handed but Sanders (who is not a Democrat) has no business commenting ...just makes me dislike him more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:42 AM

48. it's not about what jersey people wear, it's what policies they support

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #48)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:05 AM

80. Excuse me? No it is about electability...the most pure in terms of policy are useless if they can't

elected. why give the GOP something to latch on and destroy our candidate and keep the seat...Fletcher is a great candidate with no baggage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #80)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:51 PM

160. and how did the Democrats do in 2016 or the statehouses & governorships?

The Democratic leadership argument since they late-80's has been that they have to be fiscal conservatives to win, so they that they can be progressive on culture and race.

However, Bernie's candidacy and success in polling with swing voters and even Republicans show that calculus is dead wrong.

Democrats have been losing or winning narrowly because they don't offer enough that helps the middle and working class, and what they do offer clearly has to pass through a filter of not pissing off big donors too much, or more often, policies that help us have to profit the 1% even more.

People get that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #160)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 07:29 PM

193. The legislatures are gerrymandered and when the top loses so do the lower candidates...

Feingold didn't do well either now did he?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #160)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:19 AM

213. Actually gerrymandering and Russian interference

have caused the situation where Democrats get more votes but Repubicans get elected.

Is that clearer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #80)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:13 AM

201. If the Democratic Party refuses to give all candidates and equal chance in the primary,

 

how in the world can it know who is or is not electable?

Who is the "our" in "our candidate"?

Are we never to have change?????

I think that professional campaigners, people paid to manage campaigns, should allow ALL Democratic voters to have a say in who will win a primary and run in the November election.

It is utterly fascistic for one or the other party to pick the candidates without the input from the primary voters.

This is the Russian model for picking the candidate.

No. I'm not for it. Primaries should be as open to Democratic voters as possible. It should be a testing ground for potential candidates and also, more importantly, for their ideas. It's also a practice session for the candidates.

I am not for the dictatorship of party leaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #201)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:24 AM

205. The Democratic Party is behaving "utterly fascistic?"

The Democratic Party follows "the Russian model?" Outrageous, insulting sophistry. And the ignorance is enormous: fascism is an archconservative form. Democrats are the anti-fascists.

As for what parties do,

Democracy is the system that allows anyone who wants to run for office.

The main purpose of political parties within democracies is to get people who share their values and goals elected.

You're mistaking the two.

These days, the BEST candidates ares the strongest candidates we can field against the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #205)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:14 PM

224. I totally agree with your statements about democracy and the purpose of political

 

parties. I have been understanding some of the posts of others to suggest that the Democratic Party leadership should pick candidates to run in the primary and the rest of us should just vote for that candidate.

I agree with you.

I consider that those arguing that we should always blindly follow the Party leadership in voting for their choice of candidate in primaries are fascistic. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the posts since I am not in Texas. But . . . .

You are right with regard to the purpose of primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #224)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:28 PM

231. Who is advocating "blindly following party leadership?" You make a lot of accusations

and never back them up with any facts.

You just go silent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #231)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 01:07 PM

237. PUtting the word "blindly" in there at first seems clever, but it is just another TACTIC

to get a result democrats like you and myself are not seeking, electing Democrats.

I dont know why this shit is allowed here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #224)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:09 PM

243. So now youve morphed into implying corruption at every

step, all because of your bitterness that more people preferred Hillary. You keep implying no one voted for her, that every voter was denied a vote which all would have been for Sanders, of course. These kinds of contrived fantasies and misinformation campaigns serve no purpose. They keep getting more and more abstract.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #243)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:08 PM

244. I didn't suggest anything about Sanders and Clinton.

 

I just oppose super delegates. I would oppose them regardless who won the nomination. They facilitate corruption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #244)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 09:42 AM

251. You are only pushing the contrived corruption conspiracy

because it is supposed to bolster the conspiracy that Bernie was cheated. It is just sour grapes. There is no excuse for continuing to smear Democrats just to prop up contrived scenarios. It is not corruption or conspiracy that more voters preferred Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #205)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:16 PM

226. Alert, some posts on DU and elsewhere on social media are written in Russia...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #226)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:24 PM

229. Right. Sigh. We are in the 2018 primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Sophia4 (Reply #201)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:57 AM

206. Since Moser (who will never win the Texas General ) is in the

runoff...sounds like people voted...and you are simply tearing down the Democratic Party. Democrats are the only party that can stop Trump and the Republicans. And there is nothing wrong in considering electability as well as ideology...in fact if you don't, than you are setting up a loss. Moser has baggage...the 50,000 to her husband's consulting firm ( that is 1 in 6 campaign dollars) and the comments about Texas are problematic. I would vote for her in a general for sure but not a primary. It is the DCCC's job to elect Democrats. I think they were a bit heavy handed but they were right. We have a real shot at this seat and desperately need to take back the house in order to stop Trump's assault on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security as well as the environment and the economy...not to mention DACA. We are in a tough spot in the Senate...not only could we lose seats, the GOP could end up with a working majority. God help us then. We need the House to stop Trump and the Republicans. Now, I am very liberal...more so than Pres. Obama in fact, but I don't give a damn about ideology this particular election especially in red states. We have a gerrymander and must overperform in order to take the House. It is desperately important that we win the House in 18. All this angst about ideology in red states for heaven's sake is ridiculous because people the house is on fire. We are so screwed if we don't get the House in 18. I would like the Senate too...but failing that the house is everything. Honestly ideology is not worth a damn if you lose. There is no righteousness in losing when people are depending on you to stop Republicans and the fascist monster that is Trump. We need a big tent solution in order to get back in the majority...there is no other way to hold a majority in the Senate. And we need to support candidates who can win their states. Not where If I remember correctly where you live which is California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #201)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:14 AM

212. We Democratic voters, not "the party leaders." picked our candidate in 2016. What r u talking about?

You seem to have swallowed some agitprop... whole.

You think that the Democratic party used "the Russian model?" On what basis?

What party do you support, anyhow?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #201)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:49 AM

219. "Our" is the collective members of the DEMOCRATIC Party. Which Democratic voters (as in....

...."ALL Democratic voters" ) don't have a say in who will win a primary and run in the November election? Did I miss something?

I honestly don't have any idea of what you're implying here:

"It is utterly fascistic for one or the other party to pick the candidates without the input from the primary voters."

Are you referring to the Democratic Party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #219)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:10 PM

223. It is my understanding that some here, not necessarily you,

 

are suggesting that candidates should not compete in primaries but rather just vote for the candidate chosen by party leadership.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding?

But that is the way I am reading some of the posts.

I think that is a crazy idea, but . . . . that is what I understand some posts to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #223)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:14 PM

225. I haven't seen that at all.

As far as I know, all of our candidates are chosen by the Democratic voters in their jurisdiction.

Even in the case of conventions at the state or local level, they only endorse candidates, they don't choose candidates. Any candidates not endorsed are still free to challenge the endorsed candidate in a primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #225)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:19 PM

227. That is the way it is supposed to be!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #227)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:37 PM

233. You keep saying that it's not, but never back up your accusations against the Party with any facts.

Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #225)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:38 PM

234. Yes, that's what I've seen as well. Except for caucuses -which disenfranchise voters. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #223)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:44 PM

235. Who is saying that? Sounds like a strawman to me.

I know you won't provide any backup for your "observations" that always seem to damn the Democratic party and leadership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #48)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:44 AM

104. Oh heck no, never, what system are you talking about?

Surely you are not talking about our two party system where the party with

ONE

MORE

SEAT

than the other makes

E V E R Y decision about E V E R Y T H I N G

It is in fact, especially now, ONLY about putting D's in seats...How in the heck can people NOT understand that yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #104)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:51 AM

110. But we have been failing at that for years. You seem to think its because we've been hard on

 

moderates. That is wild. Its because moderates have tanked our message, undercut our legislation, and voted over and over with republicans on pivotal issues. We've lost a 1000 seats in 30 years! We can't keep congress or the Senate when we win it because our own moderates back away from progressive legislation that does get passed so we look like we don't even like what we're bringing to the American people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #110)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:53 AM

111. I didnt say or mean any of that. This is how simple it is.

You vote for the candidate with a D after their name that the polls tell you has the best chance of winning that race, period, end of discussion.

Why we do that we dont need to discuss, I hope. We all understand how the 2 party system works. I hope.

And this has NOTHING to do with policy, agenda or anything, RIGHT NOW, it has to do with getting ACTUAL Nazi's who are working with our ENEMY out of office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #111)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:59 AM

113. what polls are you talking about? Vote for the candidate in the primary you want. If people get

 


the candidate they want they will be more likely to be energized to get out to the polls on election day.

It always has EVERYTHING to do with policy and agenda. There is no base of power that is protected from being infiltrated by cynical actors. If you dont' actually give a shit what they stand for then what the hell does the party label even mean? I'll help you out....0.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #113)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:43 PM

122. +1000!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #111)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:30 AM

214. But what if I want a candidate that is tailored to my User Preferences?

I don't take off-the-shelf anything! I accept nothing less than bespoke. It would violate my ethics, not to mention my feels. There is no reason we can't have an Amazon.com model for our Democracy. RIGHT NOW.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #214)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:07 PM

222. I just read a response to me that was written in Russia.

We need to understand that here but we are just not yet ready to accept there are KGB or as they are now called FSB agents posting on Democratic Underground

They arent high level agents, they are worker bees that work for Putin, there are thousands of them that post all over social media all over the world.

Bots are different. But also effective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #222)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:35 PM

232. Indeed. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #222)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:20 PM

246. Where did you read that? Please tell me you wouldn't make an accusation like that without

 


proof. Please please, in the climate of Trumpism, tell me that that isn't a baseless claim that's simply good enough because you yourself believe it to be true.

ON the other hand, if it did happen, and somehow you were able to discern it to be the truth and it was somehow ferretted out, well damn. That's both disheartening but encouraging that it was spotted. I really hope this is the kind of thing you are referring to and not the former.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #214)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:55 PM

238. what does that even have to do with what I said? Our approach has been failing, that is

 


if winning seats is the point. I'm all for taking the best we can get once we've actually had a real choice not massively pre-weighted by our party getting behind the candidates best able to demonstrate that industry likes them and will give them money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #110)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:23 PM

228. Just this week, self-styled "moderates" voted against the reforms we made in the

 

investment and banking industries after the crash of 2008. Maybe some of the reforms should have been changed, but not the way they were changed.

Democrats have failed in elections because we do not give voters any hope for a better economy for them and their families if we win.

Granted, some of what elected Trump in the electoral college (in which small red states are overcounted and large blue states don't get counted fairly at all) was racism. But a lot of it was his strong, albeit insincere and possibly even crooked, economic message.

Democrats are afraid to focus on an economic message that will lift all boats. And that is why we lose in so many struggling states. That's my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #228)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:04 PM

245. Yep, but even when dealing with racism, we always ignore the forces that make those

 


regressive beliefs so engrained...so intractable. People are already readily capable of believing that the source of whatever pain or suffering they might be experiencing is some other person that is not like them in some superficial way, but it doesn't hurt that while corporations and industries continue to inflict economic hardship on people, they continue to use their media mouthpieces to scapegoat immigrants and transgender people and Muslims and people of color, etc. because it works. Because it plays into those existing biases easily.

And barely any energy has been put into getting these people on the same side of an issue. the democratic party has been derelict in its responsibility to fight these divisions over the years, by not taking up our side of the class war in a meaninful enough way....by literally avoiding the designation of a class war. They've let us fight in the mud with each other rather than to channel our rage to where it rightfully belongs....rather than to foster love and community between people of all walks of life, because in that narrative, we actually need each other in our common cause. In that narrative , attempts to scapegoat immigrants are met with pointing out the agenda of the those at the levers of the machine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #110)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:46 PM

236. What have Democrats been failing at for years? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #236)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:05 PM

242. are you serious right now? Being nearly perpetually in the minority and losing 1000 seats in

 

state and national elections is not a winning track record. I'm not saying the job of democrats isn't 1000 times harder than Republicans...republicans get way more corporate backing, but if this is the best we can hope for we may as well give the fuck up already. It's over. We're done.

I assure you that's not the fault of the far left. Its not the fault of democrats either, but it is the fault of money corrupting our form of government to the point hwere there may be no return, and there certainly will not be if we don't finally at long last, demand of our party that they be the ones to draw a hard line in the sand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #242)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 08:07 AM

249. What is "the hard line in the sand" you are referring to?

Refusing legal money to run campaigns? Unilaterally disarming is the way to win back those "1000 seats in state and national elections?"

Does the rampant GOP gerrymandering have any impact in your angry at Dems narrative?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #249)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 11:16 AM

252. of course it does. Had we been winning seats then the GOP wouldn't have had that opportunity,

 



but yes of course, nor would I ever try to pretend that I'm certain disarming for the sake of trying to harness a populist weapon would work. I'm just fiarly damn certain that we're at a point where if we don't try that, we are going to continue to backslide. If, when dems do regain power(for 2, maybe 4 years), we do not unequivically put in unassailable protections to net neutrality and if we do nothing about the near monopolies on messaging that big corporations have as internet providers and social media giants slowly work out ways to filter out what kind of exposure people get to news and information, while the rich use their vastly expanded wealth to influence public opinion and buy every level of government to one degree or another...we will have absolutely hit a point of no return.


but back to the money, you think that's our weapon. Its not. Its their weapon. Its like saying, "yes please mail us those letters full of anthrax so that we can fight you with it..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #252)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 11:51 AM

253. Actually money buys media time. And analyst services. And researchers.

and snacks for volunteers, and expert consultants on issues that are relevant, and message marketing consultants, and good salaried experienced field staff, and accountants, and bank services to process the donations - both one time and monthly, and lawyers, and transportation to meetings and rallies, and printed materials, and meals for staff, and lodging for staff, and media buyers, and strategists, and other campaign necessaries that are too numerous to mention here.

Yes, it is a vital tool, if not a "weapon" as you put it.

To fight someone you need not only weapons, but resources. And those resources cost more than all the $27 donations you can squeeze out of people, no matter how many times one person may make a $27 donation. It requires the cash that groups, advocates, and yes, even lobbyists and the wealthy have to give. We want the 1% to pay their share of taxes, and I think they should be paying their fair share of campaign costs for those who represent the people. And no, it doesn't mean that they get their particular wants met - for example Barney Frank took money from Wall Street to get elected, and turned around and wrote legislation that limited them. It's like assuming that someone automatically sleeps with the person who took them to dinner.

It's interesting - those of us on the left have no delusions on how much funding is required for decent public schools, maintaining our infrastructure and a secure public safety net. However when presented with the realities of what a modern campaign costs, many suddenly sound like tea partiers who are told that teachers need a living wage.

Of course, there are always going to be those campaign staffers who abuse funds, using them for personal purposes. Even the most progressive candidates have dealt with that as recently as 2016. So, no, that potential can't realistically be a dealbreaker when a candidate is seeking funding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #253)

Sun Mar 11, 2018, 01:32 AM

254. It is harder to assess whether a donor is getting what he or she or it paid for

 

than you make it sound.

the reason banks and other institutions give money to the more "friendly", less pugilistic democrats, is because those are perfectly acceptable alternates should their republican favorites lose. What they are doing is preventing a populist from winning the primary on the democratic side of the aisle, and then possibly winning in the GE. They are preventing somebody who is going to run on fire and fury against the banks, etc. from galvanizing the people around said cause, and potentially starting off a cascading event that continues to erode the choke-hold that money has on our politics. Then where would these institutions be?

However, if these moderate steps were enough, then shit, we'd be moving in the right direction, and you would be correct in justifying this approach and I would be wrong for demanding that we do something far more drastic and risky, but I think the evidence should suggest to you that this approach has been failing, and miserably.

I have no illusions about what a campaign costs either. That does not change the fact that if these corporations and rich individuals weren't winning, they'd quit gambling. They win every time, and they do it by hedging their bets. When we play with their money we still lose. You are 100 percent correct that a challenge to them without money to support our outreach, campaign, expenses, etc. is a essentially a goliath versus an ant story, but with it, it isn't a challenge to them at all. It is simply a cost of doing business.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #254)

Sun Mar 11, 2018, 09:05 AM

255. Actually, it's against the law for banks and corporations to give money to candidates.

You should become more informed on the topic, even if it does not support your current opinion.

However, it's convenient for the candidates that accuse their opponents of quid pro quo with no evidence whatsoever, that so many will just believe them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #255)

Sun Mar 11, 2018, 12:46 PM

256. I love how people here are perfectly willing to follow the money

 

when Republicans, like Rubio refuse to say they will take no more donations from the NRA, but when it comes to democrats and donations, said industries are applying no influence whatsoever and ....oh, in fact its suddenly illegal. You know on whatever level that its illegal there are plenty of other legal avenues of financial support, say...uh, super pacs. For that matter, I'm pretty sure there is a certain direct contribution threshold that corporations are allowed to give to candidates (not to mention a higher one in total if they are going to contribute to a party), and it remains true that individuals, CEOs, other executives, etc. can themselves contribute at the highest money value.

Actually here is the details on whether or not corporations can contribute:

Corporation Contribution Limits
22 states completely prohibit corporations from contributing to political campaigns. Another six-Alabama, Missouri, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, and Virginia-allow corporations to contribute an unlimited amount of money to state campaigns. Of the remaining 22 states, 19 impose the same restrictions on corporation contributions as they do for individual contributions. The other three set different limits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #256)

Sun Mar 11, 2018, 01:33 PM

257. According to the FEC Website:

Last edited Mon Mar 12, 2018, 08:11 AM - Edit history (3)

Who can’t contribute

Campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from certain types of organizations and individuals. These prohibited sources are:

Corporations, including nonprofit corporations (although funds from a corporate separate segregated fund are permissible)
Labor organizations (although funds from a separate segregated fund are permissible)
Federal government contractors
Foreign nationals
Contributions in the name of another


https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cannot-contribute/

And are you talking about 501(c)(4) PACS who can take "dark money" like Crossroads GPA and Our Revolution?

As for the NRA's influence on candidates....

Of course if a favored non-GOP candidate has taken NRA money - and/or has been the beneficiary of NRA ads against their opponent, got an endorsement from Wayne LaPierre, voted no on gun control legislation, and gets praised publicly by the NRA for repeating their own talking point that passing liability laws on gun manufacturers is = to trying to "shut down gun manufacturing in this country," some people here are perfectly willing to dismiss that interesting confluence of actions because reasons!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #104)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:22 AM

202. That is not the issue. The issues are how do we identify the best, most electable

 

candidates for the actual election? A primary that includes candidates of all stripes and abilities helps us do that. And how do we excite and interest voters so that they will get out and vote? A primary does that.

The problem in the past has been that the candidate that wins the Democratic primary does not bother to unite the party and embrace and include the candidates that also ran in the primary and his/her supporters, expressing respect and above all, respect and inclusion.

So we need a candidate that not only is electable but that in order to really be electable has the humility to reach out and include the candidates who lost. It is this latter act that often decides which party wins in the November election especially in this time of the internet.

In 2016, the problem was that the Hillary faction did not reach out and include the Bernie faction. Hillary would have won in the swing states if she had really been gracious to Bernie supporters many of whom were young and inexperienced in politics.

Politicians have to be naturally very generous and forgiving. That takes a person of great spiritual capacity. A person who projects love.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:46 AM

68. my understanding is that also was not true, but maybe the source I heard it from was wrong.

 

If I'm correct all of that money was spent on what it was supposed to be spent on and the receipts show it. Really depressing if true, because the DNC funded that oppo research and leaked it apparently...but I'll caveat all of that because I'm too lazy right now to dig into it. I don't want to actually spread false info as if its fact if it isn't. I'll go and take a look later today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #68)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:04 AM

79. It doesn't matter what is was spent on...the money provided some income to both of them...it is a

business...and it is bad optics... many candidates do this, but the GOP will use it ... which is what concerns me. I hope Fletcher wins...she has a better shot. The idea is to win the seat not got to war with the DCCC and nominate someone with a particular ideology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #79)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:31 AM

95. no, God no! The point is to nominate people with actual ideology. Not with team spirit,

 


whatever the agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #95)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:41 AM

102. Ideology is meaningless if the person doesn't get elected. You field the best candidate for

the district or state. consider that we will never have the senate again without moderates. I would like to elect the most liberal candidates possible in every state. But in Texas, we have to consider electability. The GOP will destroy Moser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #102)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:45 AM

105. Its you who don't get to have it both ways. The party is trying to decide who is

 

electable before even putting it to the people. OR, they are just deciding who they like best. Who rocks the boat less. Since they are scuttling opponents to their preferred candidate then how do we even get to know who is more electable? They aren't letting the fight play out fairly. They aren't letting us tell them who we want based upon ideology.

I refuse accept that we need to prop up moderates. It's unproven, as I posted to you elsewhere today. What the facts do say is that we have lost a 1000 seats or so in 30 years. You want the people who helped that happen to continue to make the decisions about who we elect?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #105)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 01:24 PM

135. The party pointed out issues Moser has. She has not denied any of it. I think the DCCC should

have been more circumspect but you can bet the GOP will use the information to attack Moser and keep the seat. Our Revolution candidates are unlikely to get elected in Texas. Fletcher is a great Democrat and does not have the baggage that Moser has which will be used to attack her. We need to take the House. The point is to win. I hope like hell that Moser loses in the run off... I don't think she would be in the running if the DCCC had not done what they did...if Moser wins, mark my words, we lose the seat...a seat we have a good shot at with the right candidate. I am not getting all wrapped up in 16 style hatred for the Democratic Party...some (not saying you) still harbor resentment and it is just a waste of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #135)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:01 PM

240. that baggage, unless there's something I didnt' hear about is pretty weak. By the way though,

 


there is plenty of resentment shown on these boards about anything even tangentially Sanders related, so there's no way all of the people getting wrapped up on bitterness about the primary and making their decisions that way is just negative towards the DNC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #240)

Sat Mar 10, 2018, 08:24 AM

250. 50,000 to your husband's campaign is not a nothing...the GOP will use it against her... Yes I know

they do shit like this all the time but we have to be 'above reproach'. Also, the comments about Texas are problematic. But I think the fear is she can't win the district. Now I don't know enough about Texas politics to know who is right...but we have a chance with the seat so we should take our best shot. I don't like to see the division this has caused...and the DCCC was heavy handed. I did some reading on both candidates. I like Fletcher. She has no baggage did not recently return to Texas to run and has a very impressive background and has fought for policy I support. I have nothing against Moser although I don't like Our Revolution and in general am less likely to support any of their candidates in a primary. But I just see red flags...moving back to run (carpetbagger in southern terminology), money to hubs firm and the anti-Texas comments while she and her husband were living in Washington. He worked for Sen. Sander's campaign so of course will be painted as too liberal for Texas... and I can see what the GOP can do with all of this...I just want to win the seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #95)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:46 AM

106. I cant believe people are still saying what you just said.

It makes me want to give up, it really does.

If you dont understand yet how this system works, then we might as well pack it in now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #106)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:47 AM

107. say something of substance or don't bother. What is your grievence with what I said?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #95)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 06:59 AM

207. So, JCanete, what IS Moser's real ideology?

You have no idea. She has no real history. including with Bernie Sanders and Our Revolution. I looked at the articles she'd written in the past. They spoke of neither.

Did she choose to call herself a Capital-P Progressive instead of a Democratic progressive because that label would get her a ready-made constituency? You don't know.

Why did she choose to turn into a Texan and run in Texas? You don't know.

WHAT would she do in congress? Based on her writings, I think she'd vote reliably with the Democratic caucus. So what makes Moser the best choice? You don't know.

People are rejecting a known candidate with a record they can depend on for a bumper sticker. Why? What's wrong with this?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #207)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:57 PM

239. I haven't endorsed her. You're totally right, I don't know these things. She's not in my district or

 

Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:26 PM - Edit history (1)

state. How does that excuse opposition research by the DCCC against a democratic candidate, and more to the point, putting forward information that is specious?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:16 PM

116. Hate

I got where I hate that God damn far left, I from Texas , what is fucking Sander doing commenting on a Texas race .Anybody he endorsed , I sure wouldn't vote for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joediss (Reply #116)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 01:14 PM

131. He is commenting on he DCCC actually. I think fletcher is the best candidate...really

like her. I wish I could vote for her but I am in Ohio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:53 AM

6. I like...

...Moser very much, but Fletcher did get more votes and it seems like she has a better chance. Bernie Sanders and the establishment Democrats certainly made their preferences known - their "influence" maybe pointed out characteristics about these women, but I think the voters knew about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 06:03 AM

7. So the attacks are only acceptable

when they come from BS and his BS Our Revolution group. They certainly don't like it when someone pushes back.

Join the party Bernie, then criticize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 06:55 AM

11. Someone should remind him of what Our Revolution/Steve Brown did to Sri Kulkarni.

Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Turns out Kulkarni finished first, another candidate finished second, and Steve Brown was eliminated from the run-off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:06 AM

21. They didn't do that with party funds. (n/t)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:47 AM

50. Who did it with party funds?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #50)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 01:41 PM

137. The DCCC is a party organ.

 

The AP headline writer blurred a crucial distinction. Even allowing for the space constraints of a headline, I fault this one.

Bernie didn't say that candidates in a primary should never criticize one another. As the first sentence of the linked article states, he was actually "warning the Democratic Party not to attack its own candidates in primary battles...." [emphasis added]

Bernie is hardly alone in drawing this distinction. Many news articles about the Texas race commented on how unusual it was for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to release oppo research on a Democratic candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:44 AM

103. since most who value Our Revolution don't donate...I doubt it was done with funds that were supplied

by Our Revolution. As for me, I want the DCCC to field electable candidates. I do donate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #103)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:32 AM

209. Hi, Dem. We auto-donate to the DCCC and the DSCC.

We also expect them to use it to get Democrats elected to office.

That said, just hope the mess this hopeful race turned into hasn't lost us a congressional seat.

We knew long ago that Our Revolution types are emotionally invested in replacing Democrats, not Republicans, and offering them up an excuse to swarm to the support of an obscure candidate was not smart. There's no indication she's really one of them, but the label is all that's needed to activate them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #209)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:34 AM

215. I agree...she is supported by them.

I donate too...and I think the DCCC should have been more circumspect about this. Fletcher is a good candidate and I hope we didn't blow it to...this echos the 16 primary issues. The DCCC wants to get this seat as do we all...and I agree that Moser will lose.

https://ourrevolution.com/press/our-revolution-endorses-laura-moser-us-house-representatives/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #215)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:48 AM

218. Well, no matter how smart the DCCC becomes,

I'm afraid this will echo the 2016 issues. Quarrelsome minority factions who won't ally always attack inward to get attention, and a venal press always looking to increase viewers will always restyle squabbles as wars.

Fact is, for the media, compared to the GOP, Democrats are healthy, united, virtuous and boring as dirt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:48 PM

158. I don't want to mess with your mind BUT

 

With the clarification that IT WASN'T STEVE BROWN it was the head a local chapter of "Our Revolution," you are right to call it out. Bringing up stuff just to smear someone, like an expunged guilty plea to possession of cocaine (I could care less if it was a felony or not) is total crap.

Now I don't know that not calling out someone who heads up like 20 people is the equivalent of not calling out the DCCC, BUT there is no excuse for sliming someone for something like using blow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GaryCnf (Reply #158)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 04:02 PM

165. Yes, and thank you (not messing with my head at all!!!)

No, it wasn't Steve Brown, it was Our Revolution, just as it wasn't Fletcher, it was DCCC (not sure if it came from DC or the local chapter)

From what I read the infraction didn't even result in a guilty plea. At the time because of his age and the fact that it was a first offense, after a two-year period with no subsequent infractions, the charge was dismissed outright.

What was even more chickenshit about it was that they accused him of using an "assumed name" because he goes by Sri instead of Srinivas. I don't see anyone from Our Revolution accusing Senator Sanders of using an assumed name because he goes by Bernie instead of Bernard.

Here's the article I read about this.

http://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/texas-congressional-candidate-sri-kulkarni-acknowledges-teen-drug-arrest-youthful/article_54a39be6-1e55-11e8-8db1-6f520552146f.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #165)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 07:04 PM

192. Yea, it was just a deferred prosecution, no conviction entered

 

I was selling dimes when I was 17, so you can imagine what I think about this. The name stuff was way over the top too, not to mention deaf as hell.

I am further left than even Sanders and I may not like where the party has headed recently but that is no f'ing excuse for that kind of stuff. This is a competitive race and one person being a child can make a negative difference.

No excuse at all.

Take care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:01 AM

54. I read somewhere that the MLBPA has castigated the NFL about some of their playing rules!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:51 AM

71. Do you see any difference at all betwen the DNC getting involved and attacking somebody in a

 

a democratic primary, basically king-making, versus two candidates going at it? Any? Any?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #71)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:13 AM

88. Yep, this is the point.

I don't understand why so many people have trouble understanding this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #71)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:48 PM

157. The king making -aka coronation - fallacy gave us Trump.

 

Enough of that shit already. Seriously disrespectful if the will of the voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #157)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:51 PM

161. oh come on. For starters, that is not what gave us Trump. Secondly, bullshit if you

 

really truly think leadership doesn't have a stakein who it pushes forth or tries to sideline. And a particular level of bullshit from you given that in this case the DCCC has obviously waded in to do this this time around. Maybe choose another thread where the evidence isn't so fresh.

Seriously though, pushing Russian propaganda as a reason that Trump won, based upon your own argument, really is disrespecting the will of the people, isn't it now? So....I don't believe that shit, but I'm really surprised to learn that, assuming you are consistent, you must.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #161)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:57 PM

162. I actually think they ought to have a better vetting processand not let people temporarily

 

Become Dems just to use their resources. Why shouldn’t they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #162)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:59 PM

163. because they are us...fucking a. We get to decide who we want to vote for in the primary.

 


If we dont' want a candidate, we don't vote for that candidate. I thought you were just going on about respecting the will of the voter? I guess that's no longer convenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #163)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 04:02 PM

164. You think Dems should let Nazis put a D after their name, and I do not.

 

I think there should be some evidence that the person actually supports Dems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #164)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 04:05 PM

166. well when that becomes an issue we can talk about it. How much democratic support is your

 


hypothetical candidate going to get by democratic voters? Any? Will that person even get enough support to get on most ballots? It sounds a little wee bit hyperbolic, don't you think ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #166)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 04:19 PM

167. These days I wouldnt put it past anyone to try and put a D after their name to bring down other

 

Dems by association. And yeah, they could actually whip up a few percent of the votes. And worse- disrupt the media with crazy shit, hurting other candidates. It’s more likely than it ever was. Republicans made that mistake, we shouldn’t follow their example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #167)


Response to bettyellen (Reply #167)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:55 AM

210. Laura Moser's likely a plain old Democrat,

Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:30 AM - Edit history (1)

even if not a highly principled one. Her husband worked in the Obama campaign and admin, and they stayed with their Obama circle when her husband moved into business. Her own explanation of her political change was in joining the Democratic resistance to Republicans with Trump's surprise election. Not with Sanders two years earlier.

I've browsed all her old articles for WSJ, Vogue, Slate and another that I could find, and I found plenty of evidence for liberal creds, but no evidence that she's an Our Revolution type. The tone and themes are entirely missing.

Given her years in the Democratic mainstream (she's 40) right up to, well, until she decided to run under the Cap-P Progressive label, it's reasonable to wonder why. Did she have a personality transplant? Or was it that the DCCC already had committed to some good local candidates with experience and records, and bases of local Democratic support? And that instead running as a Prog would create an automatic support structure and base for her?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #164)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 04:32 PM

169. The Democratic Party has no say in the matter.

 

Someone who registers as a Democrat (in a state with partisan voter registration) is, AFAIK, entitled to run in the Democratic primary and seek the Democratic nomination. There may be a requirement to achieve a certain percentage of the vote at a convention or to submit petitions with a certain number of signatures from registered Democrats. Never, however, have I ever heard that some Democratic Party committee at any level (local, state, or national) has the power to veto a candidate on the basis of ideology.

I don't pretend to expertise in the election laws of all the states. I'm just making an educated guess that there is no such law. If you learn of one, please provide a link.

The closest analogy I can think of is how, back in the Jim Crow era, Democratic committees in the South directed that only whites could run in the primary. That was held to be unconstitutional. Now, given the history of the Civil War Amendments, the Supreme Court has recognized that race-based distinctions are subject to particular scrutiny. The abolition of the white primary doesn't conclusively prove that the Court would overturn a state law empowering a party committee to bar candidates it didn't like. When and if there is such a state law, that issue might become relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #169)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:10 PM

174. hopefully theyll make tax returns a ballot requirement going forward....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #174)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:13 PM

176. That also will be a matter of state law.

 

The DNC does not control ballot requirements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #176)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:16 PM

177. I know- a few states are working on just that! I think its great. At this point we cant rely on

 

“Norms” or standards anymore, as several candidates have shown. A lot will need to be codified- also for the office of President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 06:26 AM

8. Double edged sword

be nice, don't attack, but be in fighting form for November

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 06:32 AM

9. That could be stand-up comedy. lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 06:53 AM

10. Is he aware of the attack his Our Revolution endorsed candidate, Steve Brown....

...made against his opponent, Sri Kulkarni, in Texas' 22nd District? He dug up dirt from when Kulkarni was 18 years old and used it against him in the campaign. Thankfully Brown finished third and won't be in the May run-off.

Does Sanders consider THAT attack appalling and "not acceptable"? I didn't see anything about it in his statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 07:26 AM

12. Hee hee

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:05 AM

37. Interesting. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:14 AM

89. Interesting Word.... 'Warning'

Maybe he should apply that word to his son Levi

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:53 AM

75. again, totally different than the party putting its thumb on the scales when supposedly

 


this is a democratic primary race that should be decided by democratic voters and not steered by the party leadership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #75)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:01 AM

78. Nope. You should research into what the DCCC is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #78)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:38 AM

99. the official campaign arm of the democrats in the house? I wish sometimes you would

 


just cut to the chase so that we don't have to go around when you could just point out what you think I actually got wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #99)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:51 AM

109. Other than its members being elected House Democrats, the DCCC has no connection to the DNC.

Your comment about "the party" putting it's thumb on the scale was incorrect.

The DCCC acted in the same manner in the 7th District as Our Revolution did in the 22nd District.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #109)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:57 AM

112. what does official mean to you? Is it an independant pac? Democratic leadership

 


has obvious sway on the DCCC, which is why you may get a very public statement from somebody like Howard Dean, saying that he will withhold support from the DCCC if they support pro-life candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #112)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:05 PM

114. You're drifting away from the discussion about the DCCC being "the party".

Again, other than them both being comprised of Democrats, there's no connection between the DCCC and the DNC. The DCCC is not "the party".

You've also ignored the question about what Our Revolution did in the 22nd District, which some might actually consider being worse than what the DCCC did in the 7th District.

Comments?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #114)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:49 PM

125. eff...didn't put a title and lost a big post. will respond later.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #125)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:54 PM

127. It happens. If you're like me, no doubt it won't be as good the second time around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #127)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 02:22 PM

139. heh, on the bright side you aren't subjected to what was probably too long winded. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #78)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 02:29 PM

141. OK, I did research it, and you're wrong.

 

The DCCC is a Democratic Party organ (see #138) and Our Revolution is not. Please stop with the false equivalence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:38 AM

100. what about calling for a primary opponent against President Obama?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:02 PM

146. Wonder if his son, Levi, will attack any Dems

in the NH primary?

Good to know Steve Brown lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:07 PM

147. He sure acts like he's not aware of any other attacks

on Dems in primaries EVER!

Some enterprising reporter should ask him that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 07:27 AM

13. Satire is dead. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 07:28 AM

14. Too bad we cant have an open and honest discussion about this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Reply #14)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 01:15 PM

133. It is too bad. Maybe one day soon...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Reply #14)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:33 PM

151. Exactly, Fullduplexxx.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 07:38 AM

15. Imagine if a Democrat had said that. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 07:39 AM

16. Bernie Means Well but Until He Joins the Party, He Needs to Stop Criticizing the Democrats

The optics are bad when someone who doesn't belong to the Democratic Party consistently gives them advice and criticizes. It makes him look condescending and arrogant, though he no doubt means well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:03 AM

20. Are you sure he means well?

He knew Russia was supporting him and said nothing, then took credit when a staff member took personal initiative to bring this to the FBI. Sos, he knew and was willing to go for the ride with russia when it suited him. I will never vote for him again in a primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:51 AM

72. careful

facts like that get hidden all too often

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:56 AM

76. That isn't accurate. He said he knew post-primary that there was russian interference. compared

 


to the influences in the race, it probably didn't even look particularly significant to be honest. In all honesty, it was one of the least significant factors in the race in my opinion, compared to the huge money machine that owns corporate "American" media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:44 PM

156. Getting more and more disappointed in Bernie.

Voted for HRC in primary and GE. However, I didn't 'mind' him.

Now I'm getting miffed by him.

When I see the term, 'Our Revolution'....🙄.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:35 PM

152. ".. means well.." I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:42 PM

180. There's no evidence he means well.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #180)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:51 PM

198. Exactly.. not if you've been

paying attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #180)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:56 AM

221. +1000 (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 07:56 AM

17. Bernie is not a Democrat.

He gets no voice in this one. Sorry. You can't speak for a party you don't belong to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drahthaardogs (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:08 AM

22. Wow! Thanks, I didn't know that!

 

I'm sure that, if Bernie announced he was a Democrat, you and everyone else raising this criticism would suddenly warm to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:11 AM

58. No. I don't think I could ever warm to him. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jrthin (Reply #58)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 01:15 PM

134. Thank you for being candid.

 

Obviously, I disagree with you, but honest disagreement doesn't bother me the way hypocrisy does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:09 AM

85. BS needs to acknowledge and address what Our Revolution

did to Sri Preston Kulkarni.

"A candidate's drug arrest when he was 18 has riled up a Democratic primary contest for the right to challenge five-term Republican incumbent Pete Olson in a potentially competitive congressional district in Houston's southern suburbs."
snip============================================

"Kulkarni disclosed the arrest to the Chronicle on Tuesday after the case was raised by the Fort Bend County Chapter leader of Our Revolution, a group representing a progressive coalition of activists who supported the 2016 presidential campaign of Vermont senator Bernie Sanders.

Doug Beaton, the Fort Bend County chapter leader of Our Revolution, warned Fort Bend County Democratic officials of Kulkarni's previously undisclosed past in a letter posted Monday on social media. The letter suggested that Kulkarni, whose full first name is Srivinas, is running under an assumed name and that he had previously registered with the Federal Election Commission to run for a congressional seat in Massachusetts."

snip=====================================================

Beaton, of the Texas chapter of Our Revolution stated in his letter that Sri Preston Kulkarni had a felony drug conviction. According to the Houston Chronicle:

"In fact, the case was dismissed without a conviction after Kulkarni completed probation and paid a $500 fine. He noted that he was able to obtain a top-secret security clearance from the State Department."


https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Kulkarni-s-teen-drug-arrest-puts-Fort-Bend-12628608.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #85)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:37 PM

154. Thank Goodness the "our revolution" candidate

lost.

Mahalo for that, lapucelle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #85)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:39 PM

179. Sri has made a new life for himself. I am glad he won. #flipitblue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #85)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 06:29 PM

186. I know both candidates and I am glad that the our revolution candidate lost

The latest rumor is that this idiot may run for state Democratic Party Chair. That will be a trainwreck

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 06:38 PM

188. I remember these protests

One of my friends at the Susman firm was the lead litigator in the lawsuits back during these protests

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drahthaardogs (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:31 AM

29. Yet he votes with Dems. Does that annoy you, too?

And apparently he can do both. I like a guy with principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:35 AM

30. Someone who wants to tell the Democratic party what to do should

be in leadership of the party.

Especially if they are going to run against members of that party for re-election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #30)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:51 AM

33. So much for that big tent. We should

be embracing anyone who isn't a rethug imo, labels be damned. And I will admit right here, as an independent he speaks for me more than some of the people with that Dem label.

http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/2018/march/06/sanders-statement-banking-bill
Vermont Business Magazine Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) issued the following statement on legislation up for a vote in the Senate this week that would deregulate large financial institutions:

"Ten years ago, as a result of greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, this country was plunged into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, their homes, their life savings and their hope for the future. Are our memories so short that we have learned nothing from that disaster? Unbelievably, at a time of record-breaking bank profits, Congress now wants to deregulate some of the largest financial institutions in America, some of the very same banks that helped cause this financial disaster.

"At a time of concentration of ownership in the financial sector, now is not the time to deregulate banks that have more than $3.5 trillion in assets and lay the groundwork for another massive financial collapse. Now is the time to take on the greed and power of Wall Street and break up the largest financial institutions in the country."


https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/03/06/17-democrats-decried-sending-clear-message-i-work-my-bank-donors-not-my-constituents
17 Democrats Decried for Sending This Clear Message: "I Work for My Bank Donors, Not My Constituents'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #33)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:07 AM

57. There was also this vote:

http://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/344221-senate-sends-russia-sanctions-bill-to-trumps-desk

Senate sends Russia sanctions bill to Trump's desk

Senators are sending legislation slapping new sanctions on Moscow to President Trump's desk, setting up a potential showdown with the White House over Russia.

Senators voted 98-2 on the bill, which would give Congress the ability to block Trump from lifting the Russia sanctions. It also includes new penalties against Iran and North Korea.

Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voted against the bill

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #57)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 02:24 PM

140. Another misleading headline.

 

As has been pointed out on DU many times, Bernie said he supported the Russia sanctions and opposed the Iran sanctions. They were packaged into one bill so either a Yea or Nay vote would represent something he disagreed with. He weighed these competing factors and decided on Nay. If his view had prevailed, there could still have been a standalone bill for Russia sanctions, which he would have voted for.

Disagree with his weighing if you will, but to ignore his actual reason for his vote is deceptive.

Yes, Rand Paul also voted Nay. Does that prove the position was incorrect? His father, Ron Paul, voted Nay on the Iraq War Resolution. Even Hillary Clinton has since acknowledged that that was the correct vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #140)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:17 PM

196. Iraq has squat to go with this thread...

But Hillary!

Remember when Hlllary beat both male opponents by millions?? Awesome stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #140)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:43 AM

217. "To ignore the actual reason for his vote is deceptive."

You mean like so many on DU did for this?

President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.
......................................................................................................

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #217)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:53 PM

248. I for one don't ignore that reason. It's part of the criticism.

 

It's like all the derision that gets heaped on Susan Collins when she explains some right-wing vote by saying it was based on her trust that Mitch McConnell would then do something or other to mitigate the ill effects. DUers don't ignore her reason. We repeat it, harp on it even, and laugh at her for being so gullible.

There is, however, a faction that believes nobody could be that gullible, and that therefore Collins is lying about her actual reason. On this view, she wants to vote so as to appease the right wing while stating an explanation that will shield her from the left's anger when, surprise surprise, the Republican she trusted didn't act the way she says she thought he would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #33)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:26 AM

93. What do you mean by "embracing?"

not clear on what that means in concrete terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #30)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:40 AM

216. I don't know if you've seen this:

This is from the official page of The Senate Democratic Leadership.








Ahem...





Does that help clarify??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #216)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:55 AM

220. Yes, I know, and the angry gnashing of teeth here on DU when he was

given what many considered a "token" position was very loud indeed.

I'm not sure what the Director of Outreach has to do with directing the DCCC.

Can you clarify?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:05 AM

36. He's not a Democrat, what right does he have to speak for the party?

Does Ralph Nader get to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drahthaardogs (Reply #36)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:07 AM

38. He's not speaking for the party, just expressing his

opinion. Is that still allowed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #38)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:11 AM

40. No, he's telling them NOT to do something

He didn't say he thinks it is a bad approach, he said he is telling then NOT to do it. No, he doesn't have that right.

If Bernie wants to lead, join the Dems and lead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drahthaardogs (Reply #40)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:24 AM

42. Oh, he will try to join when it suits and benefits him.

He will try to use the Democratic Party again in 2020. I don’t think he realizes that ship has sailed and won’t be returning to his island.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drahthaardogs (Reply #40)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:04 AM

199. There's another Glaring reason he

doesn't have that right..

But, we can't talk about that shite here.

So I'll leave it at that.

Mahalo, Drahthaardogs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #38)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:33 AM

65. I notice that he's commented about "Democrats" and told them what to do. Does anyone know....

....if he's told Our Revolution the same thing? Apparently not.

He's concerned with what the DCCC did in the 7th District, but is he equally concerned with what Our Revolution did in the 22nd District?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drahthaardogs (Reply #36)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:47 PM

183. "Stay in the D party" the Senator said a hundred times or more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:16 AM

90. because his personal principles and political compass align more Left than Right ...

 

...doesn't make his voting in favor of some Dem policy, while flinging insults at Dem Party, sewing distrust, discord and division, any more palatable. I don't like these principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drahthaardogs (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:04 AM

56. FORWARD TOGETHER LADS and LASSES!

All parties concerned – Democrats, Democratic Socialists – should follow MLK's lead and keep your eyes on freedom and empowerment for all. Stop sniping kids!

I LOVE Bernie's laser focus on the economy and the oligarch's taking over.

I LOVE former DNC's Howard Dean's 50 state plan.

I LOVE Hillary's gun control and women's rights work.

I LOVE Warren's general brilliance delivered in down-to-Earth spit balls.

FORWARD TOGETHER LADS and LASSES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:02 AM

19. In other news

it is discovered that politicians have political opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:11 AM

23. Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:13 AM

24. I don't care who said it or why they said it.

 

It is the right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:23 AM

25. I'm for Progressives and against Establishment candidates. Whole world is that way right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #25)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:29 AM

26. Which candidates are you against? Other than GOP candidates.

Curious as to what Democrats you consider "establishment" to vote against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #26)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:46 AM

31. For and against is about more than voting.

I can't vote for anyone but my home state's Senate candidates. But I can send money against them. I can't put who in the post or it will get flagged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #31)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:50 AM

32. So why are you on DU? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #32)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:51 AM

34. It is "Democratic Underground" not "Democratic Establishment", that's why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #34)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:53 AM

35. How do you define "Democratic establishment?"

The defintion seems to be fluid, especially when used perjoratively.

What is your specific take?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #35)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:10 AM

39. Members of Congress who vote with Conservatives

for increased war/defense spending, decreases in education, housing and healthcare spending.

These people are not the establishment and fight for Progressive causes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #39)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:22 AM

41. You mean like this?

Voting for:

Removing the santions on Russia

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

Protecting 'The Minuteman Project'

gutting oversight for agricultural marketing practices

1.5 trillion dollars worth of military spending on F-35 fighter jets, because it benefits their home state

military interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq twice along with voting repeatedly for budgets that included funding for the 2003 war, Somalia, and Libya


Voting against:

The Brady Bill

The Victims of Rape Health Protection Act

increased education funding

increased funding for poor students

legislation increasing financial aid

legislation requiring federal agencies to create and enforce anti-sex discrimination policies

legislation banning imports from forced child labor

funding going towards investigations of unfair trade practices

funding for assisting prospective homeowners with AIDS


Those sorts of votes with conservatives? Because at least one of those founding members of that caucus, who is now in the Senate, has that voting record, and therefore fits your specific definition of "Democratic Establishment," as opposed to "Progressive."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #41)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:26 AM

43. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #41)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:46 AM

49. That person isn't part of the Progressive Caucus anymore, correct?

And you have no citations of any of the supposed facts your are listing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #49)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:55 AM

51. Check it out...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #51)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:25 AM

62. A lot of the bills are more complex than a single line item. Sometimes they are compromising

for support in other areas.

Not defending the votes but they do have to play politics, they are politicians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #62)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:36 AM

98. So, NOW you're saying that some politicians get a pass for voting with conservatives.

Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:10 PM - Edit history (1)

And "being political."

On what basis do you suspend your litmus test?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #62)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:48 AM

108. So when Bernie does it, it is OK?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #62)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 06:12 PM

185. Oh okay sure... whatever then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #49)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:58 AM

53. If one were to give citations/links, to use your words, "it would be flagged".

But I'm familiar with many of those votes and policy positions. They're all true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #53)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:10 PM

115. I sent them in a PM

So harun has seen them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #49)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:02 AM

55. Being in the Senate would preclude them from member of the Congressional Caucus, wouldn't it?

Your link included the founders of the congressional caucus as your definition of those who didn't vote with conservatives.

But since you want to move that goal post - I have messaged you the citations.

Now, tell me - don't those votes this fit your definition of "Establishment Democrat?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #55)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:23 AM

61. I never set any goal posts. My only push is for how working people get to

afford Higher Education, Health Care and Housing.

Rest is all a distraction as far as I am concerned.

I know a lot of candidates who never discuss those three topics and will work against them. Any candidate who has good ideas for any of those three, I will keep an open mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #61)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:32 AM

64. You said that the definition of "Establishment Democrat"

was someone who voted with the conservatives on higher Education, Health Care and Housing.

And that a "progressive" was defined by the list of those on the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

So what happens if a politician is on both of those lists?

Are they progressive or establishment Democrat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #64)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:41 AM

66. It is pretty easy to tell who is buddy buddy with the Corporate Media,

takes a lot of Corporate Donations for their campaign's and who doesn't speak about economic inequality.

The Establishment Democrats have a very well defined play book and anyone paying attention knows it.

Hence the whole reason for the creation of the Justice Democrat's and many other organizations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Democrats

This isn't rocket science...

Takes lot of Corporate Money, Votes for their donors requests, doesn't talk about economic inequality, peace, accessibility to health care, accessibility to safe affordable housing, accessibility to higher education = Crappy Establishment.

Those that do = Moving the right direction.

(Won't be responding anymore, don't think you are actually trying to learn with any of the questions you are asking)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #66)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:46 AM

69. It is illegal for any candidate to accept corporate donations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to harun (Reply #73)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:58 AM

77. Corporations are prohibited from contributing to candidates. Zero!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to harun (Reply #81)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:09 AM

83. Why the comment about Canada? From your own link:

Corporations, labor organizations, national banks

Campaigns may not accept contributions from the treasury funds of corporations, labor organizations or national banks. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, including a nonstock corporation, a trade association, an incorporated membership organization and an incorporated cooperative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #83)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 01:26 PM

136. They funnel money support through PAC's and other means

Corporations may make donations to Political Action Committees (PACs); PACs generally have strict limits on their ability to advocate on behalf of specific parties or candidates, or even to coordinate their activities with political campaigns. PACs are subject to disclosure requirements at the federal and state levels. The ability of corporations to engage in such independent expenditures has been subject to intense debate after the US Supreme Court struck down, on free-speech grounds, limits in Citizens United v. FEC, a case involving the creation of a film critical of Hillary Clinton by a nonprofit corporation.


Pardon me but why the fuck are you on here advocating a moronic point in favor of Corporations not directly funding campaigns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #136)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 04:37 PM

171. "why the fuck are you advocating a moronic point in favor of Corps not directly funding campaigns?"

In what way are you saying this is "moronic?"

Not seeing your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #81)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 06:58 PM

191. From your link

Who can’t contribute

Campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from certain types of organizations and individuals. These prohibited sources are:

Corporations, including nonprofit corporations (although funds from a corporate separate segregated fund are permissible).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #73)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:12 AM

87. You mean like this?

A principal concern among backers of Mr. Sanders, whose condemnation of the campaign finance system was a pillar of his presidential bid, is that the group can draw from the pool of “dark money” that Mr. Sanders condemned for lacking transparency.


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-our-revolution-group.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #66)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:07 AM

82. So now you're changing the your definition of "Establishment Democrats"

since you have been shown that someone on your list of progressive politicians didn't pass the "doesn't vote with conservatives" litmus test, after you challenged me for citations on those votes, and I accepted.

BTW - Corporations and unions are banned from donating money directly to candidates ("hard money" or national party committees.


You seem to be moving the goal posts yet again.


The reason why isn't rocket science...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to ehrnst (Reply #97)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:17 PM

117. Yes, and both recently resigned in shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #117)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:20 PM

119. Right. Cenk works for RT America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #97)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:52 PM

126. Thank you.

I was looking for those links.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #66)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:41 AM

101. Isn't Justice Democrats the organization from which its two founders recently resigned...

....amid a scandal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #101)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:41 PM

121. And Cenk Ugur's TYT got bought by a Republican helmed firm in 2014

That couldn't POSSIBLY have had anything to do with their slamming of Obama, and who they supported politically from then on.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/04/buddy-roemer-firm-invests-4-million-in-young-turks-network-186934

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #121)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:48 PM

124. Hmmm, a right wing lobbyist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #101)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:47 AM

204. Yep, Cenk Uygur and Kyle Kulinski resigned from

Justice Democrats.. Oh, and a 3rd.. David Koller..

Looks like Kyle Dulinski resigned because he didn't agree with the board pressuring Cenk to resign because of "past sexist writing"..

Progressive Group Ousts Cenk Uygur Over Past Sexist Writing

snip//

The left-leaning political organization, which Uygur and others established this year to support progressive primary challenges against Democratic incumbents in Congress, made the announcement Friday. The group also severed ties with David Koller, who co-founded The Young Turks with Uygur and served as Justice Democrats’ treasurer. A 2004 blogpost in which Koller used degrading language about women he and Uygur met on a road-trip surfaced this week as well.

“The words and conduct in Mr. Uygur and Mr. Koller’s posts degrade what it means to be a Justice Democrat,” Justice Democrats executive director Saikat Chakrabarti said in a Friday evening statement announcing the board’s decision to demand Uygur and Koller’s resignations. “We do not feel that Mr. Uygur is fit to lead or participate in an organization that truly believes women’s issues and the issues of black and brown people are all of our issues.”

The Justice Democrats board reached its decision to call for their departures after hearing Uygur’s “side of the story” and consulting with the political candidates the group has endorsed, Chakrabarti said.

snippet from Cenk's writing..

"“Obviously, the genes of women are flawed,” Uygur wrote in a 1999 post lamenting the inadequate amount of sex he was having while living in Miami, Florida. “They are poorly designed creatures who do not want to have sex nearly as often as needed for the human race to get along peaceably and fruitfully.”

More...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/justice-democrats-ousts-cenk-uygur_us_5a3eb4d1e4b025f99e178181

There was always something very distasteful about Cenk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #39)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:34 AM

45. Crickets... (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #31)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:56 AM

52. Bookmarking. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #25)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 02:47 PM

142. First of all.. your premise is wrong.. "establishment"

is just an insult buzzword that has nothing to do with reality.

Second.. The Whole World is NOT that way right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #142)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:26 PM

148. If in your reality

Trump was not an anti-republican establishment vote anti-washington establishment vote then we have nothing to talk about.

I am really having a hard time believing this needs to be explained to anyone right now. Can you really look at the planet and say > 50% of humanity is rooting hard for exactly the same shit on a different day? Because that is what the "establishment" gives them. It isn't a buzzword, it means the status quo. Rich getting more and poor fighting harder for less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #148)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:29 PM

149. Overused Insult Buzzword.. It's tired and stale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #148)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:44 PM

182. It's actually gone well beyond buzzword to the realm of a fucking cliche

 

It's meaningless. You just haven't figured that out yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #142)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 04:34 PM

170. It lost all its meaning when people began referring

to organizations like Planned Parenthood as "establishment."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #170)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 04:37 PM

172. Exactly, mcar...

They went overboard and overkill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:31 AM

27. In other news, Trump reminds people to be respectful of others on twitter. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bleacher Creature (Reply #27)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:31 AM

28. +1000 (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bleacher Creature (Reply #27)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:31 AM

44. And Sarah Huckabee-Sanders berates people for lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bleacher Creature (Reply #27)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:39 PM

155. Brawaaa

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:35 AM

46. What the ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #46)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 04:39 PM

173. I know, right! Did he have

a straight face?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:39 AM

47. MEANIE!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:18 AM

59. I don't think he should be telling Democrats anything...

especially about Our Revolution and who they align themselves with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:19 AM

60. zOMG, the hypocrisy.

Truly epic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:26 AM

63. Divide and conquer...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:44 AM

67. Beware of slippery slopes. This isn't about a Democrat attacking a Democrat in a primary

Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:23 AM - Edit history (1)

It isn't about a generally Democratically aligned organization like Move On, Our Revolution, or the old DLC attacking a Democrat in a primary. It is about a formal part of the Democratic Party, in this case the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, attacking a Democratic candidate in a Democratic primary.

Whatever one's feelings are about Bernie Sanders as an individual, or about his choosing to be an Independent caucusing with Democrats rather than a Democrat himself, this is not about divisive mudslinging between candidates, or even about how an individual politician could be undermining the Democratic message, it is about how the Democratic Party apparatus functions during Democratic primaries. And it is much more controversial than the DCCC openly expressing a preference for one candidate over another. It is about an organ of the Democratic Party running attack ads against a Democrat running in a Democratic primary. Is that acceptable in principle?

I almost never say never, so I won't say never here. If David Duke was running as a Democrat and had a chance of winning, I would want the party to oppose him. But, in my opinion, it has to rise to circumstances that extreme for me to back that action. Giving funding to a preferred candidate over another can be controversial in itself in some circumstances - but that's not where I tend to draw the line. This instance however, for me, is where that line tends to run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #67)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:53 AM

74. Thank you for your voice of reason.

This thread became about Bernie, but the actions of the DCCC should be examined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #74)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:11 AM

86. Indeed they should be!

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #74)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:59 PM

129. This thread "became about" Bernie?

His name is the first two words in the title of the thread. The thread is about words he spoke. How can it not be about Bernie from the start?

Became about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #129)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 01:14 PM

132. Ha, hysterical.



Hardly any mention about the DCCC. Yea, that's quite funny, too. As long as this board is in Bernie attack mode, most everyone is happy, nevermind perhaps delving into the reasons the DCCC wants to sabotage certain progressives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #67)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:09 AM

84. I disagree...it is about the DCCC doing it's job and trying to get a candidate who can win.

Moser has baggage. I don't think she can win the seat. She is backed by Our revolution as well. I won't vote for any candidate they back in a primary;they do not support Democrats in general and have publicly stated this. I had have heard many here complain about candidates and how the DCCC does a bad job fielding them...can't have it both ways. Ask yourself this...what do you think the GOP will do with the information on Moser which anyone can find? Fletcher is a better candidate with a real shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #84)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:30 AM

94. Come on Demsrule....it is not about that. I don't want my leadership weighing in like that,

 


and please at least admit that that creates a potential conflict of interest for party members who are actually in power by virtue of the status quo. You want them then to do their best to influence a race in favor of what has and will continue to work for them?

And what do you mean, you can't have it both ways. Fielding candidates and promoting them is not the same as promoting one and undermining another.

Also, you cannot tell me with a straight face that the democratic party has not been horribly disappointing on certain issues in the last thirty years. While far better than Republicans, that is no excuse for allowing party members to stack the deck in favor of business as usual.

And to repeat(mostly trust my source so while I haven't vetted I'm pretty confident of this), I don't think that info that was dug up is even legitimate as it was sold. Of course The RNC can make shit up too. You think it wont about Fletcher?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #94)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 06:37 PM

187. The sad thing is that the DCCC may have helped Moser

I used to live in this district and my law firm is located in this district. One of my friends from the Temple got me to go to a town hall where the candidates spoke. Moser was not impressive at all. The Houston paper had endorsed the cancer doctor and Lizzie P. Fleitcher. Alex T. had raised almost $1 million and got dinged by the Houston paper for not living in the district. Moser was fourth or fifth at this town hall.

Moser, Alex T. Jim Cargas (the nominee on 2014 and 2016), and Lizzie have all spoken to the county Democratic Lawyers Association. Moser is less impressive than Cargas which is sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #67)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:20 AM

91. yes, thank you. People on DU....what the fuck already? Can we quit being such reactionary

 


posters? Can truthiness be put to bed in our camp already?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #67)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:23 AM

92. Could it be that Bernie has found yet one more reasons to critisize the Left?

 

Dem Unification doesn't appear to be to goal anyway.

Laser focus on defeating the Right is the only thing that matters right now, IMHO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #67)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:34 AM

96. Sure, but the 2016 primary will never get rehashed

if everyone has that attitude!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #67)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:19 PM

118. Not sticking up for what they did, but the DCCC isn't a formal part of the Democratic Party.

In a sense, they have basically the same status as at least one of the other organizations you mention.

Our Revolution IS Bernie Sanders' organization, and he should be more concerned with the actions of an organization he founded and is closely aligned than one he is not a member of.

From their website:

"The next step for Bernie Sanders' movement is Our Revolution, which will fight to transform America and advance the progressive agenda that we believe in."

From wikipedia:

Our Revolution is an American progressive and social democratic political action organization spun out of Senator Bernie Sanders's 2016 presidential campaign to continue its work.

and....

Predecessor Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016
President Nina Turner
Key people:

Bernie Sanders, Jane Sanders, Jeff Weaver, Bill McKibben, Nina Turner

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #118)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:31 PM

120. Thanks for the clarification

I accept the distinction you make. I recall now that Tom Perez at the DNC who formally represents the Democratic Party was not supportive of the move that the DCCC made. But i still think it fair to say, at the least, that the DCCC has strong ties to the national Democratic Party. Most people identify the Democratic Party with the elected members of the Democratic Party. I accept that the DCCC has a stake in what happens in individual Congressional districts, but in my own CD right now there are 6 Democrats running in the primary, all with a good degree of local support. There would be a lot of pissed off activist Democrats around here if the DCCC started running attack ads against one of them locally in our district.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #120)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:47 PM

123. Its almost universally agreed that what they did was wrong, and I doubt that they'll do anything...

...like that again.

On the other hand, two comments:

1. The DCCC represents only a small fraction of all the elected members of the Democratic Party, specifically only House Democrats. They don't represent Senate Democrats or any state or locally elected Democrats and they don't represent the party as a whole.

2. The point of this OP and this discussion has been Senator Sanders lecturing the Democratic Party (as a whole) for what one organization, the DCCC, did in Texas' 7th District.

My point in even getting involved in this discussion is that his very own organization, Our Revolution, did almost exactly the same thing or maybe even worse, to a Democratic candidate in the 22nd District.

Specifically, Our Revolution claimed that the leading Democratic candidate, Sri Kulkarni (who ultimately finished first, their endorsed candidate finished third), had a "criminal record" because he was arrested as an 18-year old (21 years earlier) for possession of less than a gram of cocaine. That charge was ultimately dismissed without a conviction.

They also claimed that he was running under an assumed name (!), since his full name is Srinivas Kulkarni, and that he also registered to run for a congressional seat in Massachusetts.

To me and many others, what they did was despicable and might even have been worse than what the DCCC did.

One should get their own house in order before they tell others how to run their house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #123)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 01:09 PM

130. Smears are despicable.

Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 01:53 PM - Edit history (1)

We agree on that I think. You have looked at that CD primary race closer than have I. I have no basis to dispute your characterization of what happened there, nor any inclination to doubt you on it. As I know you realize, I did not try to make my post into a defense of either Bernie Sanders or My Revolution in this or any other matter. I have issues with stances that some My Revolution chapters have taken before, and no doubt will have again in the future.

To help keep our dialogue here focused, my understanding of My Revolution is that is not particularly tightly controlled in a top down manner by Sanders himself. In an earlier cycle, Democracy for America developed it's own identity after Howard Dean launched it, which is consistent with organizations that profess a strong belief in and a dependency on grass roots activism, both for better and for worse.

Though the DCCC only represents a small percentage of elected Democrats as you noted, it's a pretty important segment of them and it is an organization which all of us have every reason to expect to be run highly professionally. The perception that it is a formal organ of the Democratic Party is wide spread even if it is factually inaccurate. That said, everyone is capable of misjudgements. I am more than willing to believe that the DCCC can draw the proper lessons from this particular incident. That was the aspect of this OP that I was drawn to comment on above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #120)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:12 PM

175. You're being too charitable

 

See my posts in this thread, #138 and #168, for clarification about the status of the DCCC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #118)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 02:13 PM

138. You are wrong about the DCCC. It is a party organ.

 

Organizations like Our Revolution or the New Democrat Network are groups of private citizens who come together to influence public policy.

The DCCC, by contrast, is not a group that any concerned citizen can join. From its Wikipedia article:

The structure of the committee consists, essentially, of the Chairperson (who according to current Democratic Caucus rules is a fellow member of the Caucus appointed by the party leader in the House), their staff, and other Democratic members of Congress that serve in roles supporting the functions of the committee (candidate recruitment, fundraising, etc.).

The Chairperson of the DCCC is the fourth ranking position among House Democrats, after the Minority Leader, the Minority Whip and the Democratic Caucus Chairperson.


Its official status is further confirmed by its inclusion in the "Party Organization" page on the DNC website.

You and others are keen to deflect any criticism by indulging in "whataboutism" concerning Our Revolution. When the DNC changes its website to include a link to Our Revolution's website, get back to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #138)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:50 PM

159. I don't agree, I'll ask my congressman when I see him in a week or two. However, it's not....

...a "false equivalency" as you said in another post to me. One could actually say that Our Revolution doing something similar isn't the same as the DCCC did might be a "false unequivalency". Regardless of whether the DCCC is made up of elected officials and Our Revolution is made up of private citizens, remember that Our Revolution was founded by the Senator (and his wife) who is now admonishing Democrats to not do something that his very own organization is doing.

PS - don't worry, the DNC won't include a link to Our Revolution on their website, and the DCCC's inclusion doesn't confirm that they're part of the DNC.

I would note that on that same page of the DNC website you mention, there is a link to the Democratic Governors' Association (above both the DSCC and DCCC and several other organizations). The description is:

"Founded in 1983, the Democratic Governors Association, or DGA, is an independent voluntary political organization organized to support Democratic governors and candidates across the nation."

None of the descriptions for any of the organizations state that any of them are part of the DNC, even if they have similar and close objectives.

So, the fact that an organization appears on the DNC website doesn't implicitly mean that they're "part" of the DNC. In fact none of them are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #159)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 04:19 PM

168. Be sure to ask him the RIGHT question.

 

You write:

So, the fact that an organization appears on the DNC website doesn't implicitly mean that they're "part" of the DNC.


I didn't say it was "part" of the DNC. I said that the DCCC (like the DNC) is a "party organ." All these different party organs -- the DNC, the DCCC, the quadrennial convention, etc. -- are parts of the Democratic Party.

Our Revolution is not a part of the Democratic Party.

You can join Our Revolution. You can't join the DCCC. Its membership consists of all and only the members of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives.

The difference between the DCCC, on the one hand, and groups like Our Revolution, on the other hand, is that the DCCC is one of the two Hill committees of the Democratic Party. From the Wikipedia article:

The Hill committees are the common name for the political party committees that work to elect members of their own party to United States Congress ("Hill" refers to Capitol Hill, where the seat of Congress, the Capitol, is located). The four major committees are part of the Democratic and Republican parties and each work to help members of their party get elected to each house (the House of Representatives and the Senate).


You charge that Bernie "is now admonishing Democrats to not do something that his very own organization is doing." That's simply false. It's based on the headline, which, as I pointed out, doesn't correctly reflect the actual text of the article. Bernie isn't saying that Democrats (in general) should never attack other Democrats. He's saying that the DCCC shouldn't.

Bernie -- like many journalists who've commented on the DCCC's attack on Laura Moser -- sees a significant difference between, on the one hand, disagreements in a primary in which one Democratic candidate is criticized by another Democratic candidate or by other individuals or by groups like Our Revolution, and, on the other hand, criticisms by a party organ like the DCCC. If you follow your own advice and do some research, you'll see that the drawing of this distinction is hardly unique to Bernie. It's been a fairly widespread reaction to the Moser situation. Even some of the people who think the DCCC did the right thing have acknowledged that it's unusual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #67)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 06:41 PM

189. Did you approve of the Our Revolution slimy attack on another Democratic candidate

I live in Texas CD 22 and saw first had the slimy attack by Our Revolution on a candidate name Sri Preston Kulkarni. The Our Revolution idiots were assholes and offended people with this attack. I know that one group of African American clergy ended up not endorsing Steve Brown and endorse Sri due to the Our Revolution idiots.

Luckily, the Our Revolution candidate did not make the run off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #189)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 06:50 PM

190. I already spoke to that in a reply above. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #189)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:13 PM

194. Wow, thank you for this account, and that is awesome

the Our Revolution candidate failed The hypocrisy and nastiness is doing them in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 10:47 AM

70. LOL, Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:57 PM

128. Excuse me?

NOW you want to start with the unity thing.

Thanks for nothing, Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 02:51 PM

143. Ok DAD

But didn't you.................Remember.............that time.............oh fuck it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 02:56 PM

144. OMG! WTF! "Not Acceptable" LOLOLOLO(LOLO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 02:59 PM

145. In a related story, Sanders files copyright infringement suit

 

"Attacking candidates in a primary is my well-known specialty. This is a clear case of theft of intellectual property!," said Sanders....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #145)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:30 PM

150. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:36 PM

153. Thats a lovely glass house youve got there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:43 PM

181. Same every election, Ds attacking Ds. Bernies right, its "not acceptable."

Really, the D party purity test is getting damn old. People can't even RUN for office without people nagging them about signing up TO RUN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #181)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:32 PM

247. Too bad BS doesn't follow his own advice.

"Bernie blames Hilary for Allowing Russian Interference"

"Sanders repeatedly refused to say why he didn’t call out Russian involvement during the campaign. Clinton's campaign regularly raised suspicions of Kremlin-backed activity during the home stretch of the race."

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210272890

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:54 PM

184. Not touching this... No way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #184)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:15 PM

195. LOL, yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #184)

Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:49 PM

197. We can't.. and that's

a problem. Not how I'd really address, anyway

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 01:03 AM

203. Bernie who?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 07:30 AM

208. Isn't that essentially one of the rules on this forum?

But when Bernie says it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 08:57 AM

211. When he came to my town in June '16 he did nothing but.

I was there and heard him do it:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512046962

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Fri Mar 9, 2018, 09:02 PM

241. Yet another Sanders thread for the trash heap.

Hundreds of replies will ensue, but my practice is to trash them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread