2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders a Bourgeois Deviationist, Washington Post Declares
The day before the New Hampshire primary, the Washington Post (2/8/16) ran a column headlined:
Bernie Sanders Is No Revolutionary
written by Dana Milbank, that noted expert on revolutionary movements.
For a guy running against the establishment, Bernie Sanders sure seems to crave its approval, wrote Milbank. Sanders portrays himself as an iconoclast, an anti-politician. But he behaves in many ways like a conventional pol.
Exhibit A for this supposedly conventional behavior:
In New Hampshire last week, the Democratic presidential candidate put out an ad touting his endorsements that gave the false impression that two local newspapersthe Nashua Telegraph and the Valley Newshad endorsed him.
Actually, the ad clearly distinguishes between the endorsements it citesusing the word endorsed or endorses in narration and displaying an onscreen Endorsed By labeland the positive quotes from newspapers that didnt formally endorse Sanders, which are prefaced by declares or says instead. (An earlier version of the ad, never broadcast and quickly pulled from YouTube, did label the newspaper quotes Endorsed Bya mistake, the campaign said.)
Milbank appears to be cribbing from FactCheck.orgor maybe great minds just think alike. FactCheck (2/4/16) wrote that the ad misappropriates the credibility of two New Hampshire newspapers and leaves the misleading impression that the Nashua Telegraph and the Valley News endorsed him. Its a shabby trick of pseudo-factcheckers to put words in someones mouth and then declare those words to be false.
As another example of how Sanders actions are not those of a revolutionary, Milbank notes:
Sanders has often boasted that he doesnt have a super PAC. But, as the Posts Matea Gold has noted, an ad hoc network working to elect Sanders is also employing professional political tactics, such as the use of entities that can raise and spend unlimited sums.
If you follow that link, you find an important caveat in Golds story:
Although these entities can accept massive checks from individuals and corporationsa practice Sanders abhorsthey do not appear to be doing so, relying instead on small donations from grass-roots supporters.
A few short weeks ago, Milbank (1/26/16) was professing to adore Bernie Sanders, and to share his outrage over inequality and corporate abuses. That must have come as a surprise to longtime readers of his columns, who remembered him redbaiting the Progressive Caucus, mocking left-wing critics of Obama (whom he portrayed as their spiritual leader) and accusing Elizabeth Warren of launching a left-wing analogue to the Tea Party to go after Democrats who are inadequately doctrinaire.
Despite his newly proclaimed radical sympathies, however, Milbank still wrote in his January piece that Democrats would be insane to nominate Sanders as their presidential candidate. Why? Because hes a democratic socialist, basically:
I doubt Democrats will make an anti-immigrant bigot the president by nominating a socialist to run against him
. He embraces the socialist label
. Republicans will
portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods
. Socialists dont win national elections in the United States
. Are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.
Of course, that was last month, before Sanders nearly tied Hillary Clinton in Iowa and beat her by 22 percentage points in New Hampshirewhich clearly has Milbank worried that maybe Democrats are insane enough to nominate a socialist, after all. So now Sanders problem isnt that hes too radical; its that hes not radical enough.
Whatever works, eh, Comrade Milbank?
http://fair.org/home/sanders-a-bourgeois-deviationist-washington-post-declares/
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)They're a sickening punch, political pundits.