General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: You might not like Bernie Sanders, or you might even hate him [View all]ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"break the inertia" with Bernie?
I also have to point out that what people are supporting and what Bernie is actually proposing aren't exactly the same thing - or even near to it.
https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/voters-who-like-medicare-for-all-may-not-like-single-payer.html
Ted didn't misrepresent MFA. He also said that one of his biggest regrets was not accepting a compromise with Nixon when he had the chance. He sacrificed the possible for the perfect.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/27/AR2009082703919.html
And we might be somewhere way closer to what Canada has now than we currently are had he made a deal.
However, LBJ did have to lie about what Medicare was really going to cost to get it passed. The CBO makes that impossible now. There are way more hurdles, many of Sanders' own making, to getting his proposal into reality. The more people learn about what is actually in it, and what it will cost, I think the less they will like it - sort of the inverse of the ACA. Research what happened to Green Mountain Care - which Sanders refuses to discuss. That either means he doesn't want to learn any lessons from it to prevent it from happening to his plan, or he doesn't know or care to learn about the mechanisms that didn't work. Either way, it doesn't bode well for his plan. Certainly many politicians jumping on the bandwagon, because as long as the public doesn't know much about what's actually in it, the title appeals to people. One can promise anything if they can then blame it on "big pharma" or "other representatives" when they don't deliver, (see also dozens of votes by the GOP to repeal Obamacare, when there was no realistic way to do so at the time - in an effort to get the base, who had no real clue of the futility of it - riled up) https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/03/as-bernie-sanders-delays-national-single-payer-debate-california-nurses-keep-the-heat-on-the-legislature/
As for the Amendment King - you need to qualify that with "Roll Call Amendment King," like everyone else does when they say that about Bernie. Getting one's fact straight is something that is a good barometer of the validity of one's arguments.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/
Where did I post that? Are you confusing me with someone else, or simply attacking a strawman?
Certainly Bernie's voting record hasn't put him on the "right side of history" for the whole of his lengthy career as a politician, as my post clearly showed.
But I do think that a certain level of competency is important when someone is up for a job. I find the support of those progressive colleagues that a candidate has worked with is a more important indicator of their qualifications to run the executive branch than the number of legislative accomplishments - even per year someone has been a career politician as long as Sanders has. Certainly Obama didn't have that many or a long career. However, he had those things that made up, at least in part, for lack of track record, and the endorsement of his colleagues demonstrated that. And certainly Hillary had the support of her colleagues - including Obama, even though she was only a Senator (a very productive and effective one, by all metrics) in her 1.5 terms as a Senator.
So, you see, you are as mistaken in your assumptions about what I think, as you are about what I posted.
Is that clearer?
And I find it interesting that you think being an effective legislator is a "poor barometer" for consideration as the chief of the executive branch, who needs to work with all branches. That's what Trump supporters say is great about him - he's "not a politician."