Sanders voted against the Amber Alert bill because of his Ideological Purity (plus more nuggets)

Have to admit--I did not know sanders vote no for the Amber Alert system. There are other bills mentioned also



Me First: Why Bernie Sanders Voted Against Protecting Our Nation's Children

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/3/18/me-first-why-bernie-sanders-voted-against-protecting-children#.VwsnDkteiXi.twitter


Trevor LaFauci March 19, 2016

[Author's note: H/T to TPV community member Henry A. for drawing attention to this issue]

Would you sacrifice your own personal beliefs for the greater good?

.......

Bernie Sanders refuses to compromise for the common good.

It is a trait that has won him admiration from his devout legion of followers. They see him as "principled" in that he sticks to his guns and refuses to vote in favor of certain legislation because it has a single provision that is not to his liking......................




....................The problem with this mindset is that it creates a sense of tunnel vision where Bernie Sanders is unable to see the broader benefits of certain pieces of legislation. The most glaring instance of this occurred in 2003 where Sanders voted against the House bill that created the Amber Alert, a nationwide system that alerts the public when a child has been abducted. The bill passed the House with Sanders being among only 14 representatives, along with another ideologue Ron Paul, to vote against the bill. The bill then moved onto the Senate where it was approved by a vote of 98-0 and signed into law by President George W. Bush. Since its inception at the national level in 2006, the Amber Alert system has helped to rescue over 800 children.

So why on Earth would Bernie Sanders oppose something that saves children's lives?

The reason Bernie Sanders gave for his no vote was the fact that one of the add-ons placed on the bill would restrict the discretion of federal judges in crafting sentences for a range of crimes. .......................... Long story short, Sanders felt this one single add-on was so intrusive that he was willing to vote against the entire bill to make a political stand.

But what did his stand accomplish?

The truth is that Bernie's stance on the Amber Alert was simply the latest in a political career filled with "principled" stances that did nothing but serve his own agenda. He has consistently voted against the Brady Bill because he felt the five-day federally mandated waiting period would be too long for Vermont residents. He voted against Ted Kennedy's comprehensive immigration bill because he didn't approve of the guest worker program which he felt would drive down wages for low-income workers. He voted against the second portion of the TARP funding which was used to help bail out the American automotive industry. He voted against President Bill Clinton's health care bill because it would cover 95% of the population rather than 100% through a single-payer system that Sanders was supporting. And he was even one of just 19 members of the House who voted against a bill that required rapists to identify their HIV status to their victims because he was concerned it might potentially force innocent people to undergo testing.

The problem with all these votes is that they reflect a disturbing pattern in Sanders' legislative history: he has been unable to compromise. These specific votes are a microcosm of Sanders' entire political ideology; if certain legislation doesn't contain 100% of what he deems satisfactory then he doesn't approve the measure. Period. It's why he has gone on record saying he is against all free trade deals, even though it is obvious to even the casual observer that trade isn't all bad. It's why in 26 years in the hallowed halls of Congress, Sanders has co-authored a total of three bills, two of which renamed Post Offices. This strict ideology of "my way or the highway" is a chief reason as to why Sanders has only been endorsed by a total of 6 congressmen during his current presidential run and why he has been ranked as the most partisan member of the Senate. At this point, Sanders has become the political equivalent of a young child who either gets his way or takes his ball and goes home.

The role of a president is to represent the people, all 320 million of them. To do this you must pass legislation you feel can most benefit the greatest number of people moving forward. Part of it is ideological; there will be bills you will veto on grounds that the bill in question simply isn't appropriate for our country at this time. But an even larger part of being president is the ability to compromise.

Our country today is safer because of the Amber Alert system. It is safer because we make rapists take an HIV test. And is safer because our communities have jobs and opportunities for those involved with the American automotive industry. These are all things that have been improved upon by legislation and these are all things that Bernie Sanders refused to support for ideological reasons. On the flip side, our country is not as safe today because we don't have background checks, we don't have comprehensive immigration reform, and we didn't improve our health care fifteen years ago. These are all things that Bernie Sanders also failed to support for ideological reasons. One of the chief qualifications of being elected president is whether or not you trust a particular to do what's in the best interest of the country. ..........................

And it is why Bernie Sanders is woefully unfit to serve as our next president.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>




This is from one of the embedded links in the above article:


Tweet:
Sanders' NO vote on Amber Alert emerges as key campaign issue


http://archive.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/09/21/sanders_vote_on_amber_alert_emerges_as_key_campaign_issue/

By David Gram, Associated Press Writer | September 21, 2006

MONTPELIER, Vt. --On March 27, 2003, U.S. Rep. Bernard Sanders voted against a bill that would have set up a national coordinator for the Amber Alert system, which warns the public when a child has been kidnapped.

It's a vote that has come back to haunt him, and one that demonstrates the political liability that can come from even the most well-intentioned "nay" or "yea."

The vote has become a central issue in the heated campaign between Sanders, an independent, and Republican Richard Tarrant, in the race to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. James Jeffords.

Again and again, in TV and radio commercials, Tarrant has hammered away at Sanders over the vote, forcing the veteran congressman to air ads of his own defending his voting record.

"The Amber Alert is a great idea," the speaker in one ad says. "It alerts the public when a child has been kidnapped. Bernie Sanders voted against it. ... Bernie should know better."

The motivation behind the campaign was simple, said Tarrant campaign manager Tim Lennon.

"I think U.S. Rep. Sanders is wrong. Four-hundred members of Congress and a unanimous vote in the Senate say he was on the wrong side of that issue," said Lennon.

Sanders was one of only 14 House members to vote against the bill, which passed the Senate 98-0, with U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. -- a Sanders supporter -- voting in favor.

The same day, Leahy issued a 33-page statement denouncing the Republican-led House for tacking provisions onto the bill that he feared would be ruled unconstitutional.

...................