Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumGunning for Bernie? Or, how many random coincidences can you see in this OP?
Last edited Tue Oct 6, 2015, 01:41 PM - Edit history (3)
For as long as I've been reading at DU, I've read how being a one-issue voter or a "purist" is just too stupid and heinous for words. Didn't matter if the one issue was race, GLBT, public option, torture, GITMO, fourth amendment, drone killings, or whatever. Of course, during all that time, I never saw many posters claim to be one-issue voters. But, no matter which issue was being discussed, anyone upset about it was arbitrarily, and usually falsely, scolded for being a one-issue voter and a "purist."
Now, however, that same segment of DU seems to have become a group of almost one-issue posters. As I understand them, I am supposed to reject Bernie Sanders because of any one issue that people are trying to use against him at the moment. Not only that, but at the end of last week, even President Obama told us to become one issue voters, the one issue being.... guns.
It doesn't matter if a candidate is great on every other issue said the President. Guns is the only issue I am supposed to vote on. Not social safety nets, Medicare for all, wars, empire building, torture, equal human rights for all humans, the bill of rights, etc., but guns. I am not sure what specifically about guns I am supposed to look for from a candidate. I just know that my President just told me that something related to guns is supposed to be the only issue on which I vote. Astounding. However, he apparently is not going to take another pass at gun control legislation. More astounding?
Even before Hillary declared she was running, media were speculating about whether the White House and the Hillary campaign were already coordinating or would coordinate after she announced. I have no clue where the truth of that lies. However, at the end of last week, the President told us to become one issue voters, and, on Monday, Hillary gave a talk about guns and Andrea Mitchell ended her coverage of that talk by declaring falsely that the NRA has "of course" long supported Bernie Sanders. So, I posted about that.
Next thing I know, my inbox got trolled with a link and a different Hillary supporter invited himself or herself onto my thread to post the same link, this link. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html
Also on the thread, posts about how MSNBC repeated that whopper throughout the day and evening yesterday.
The story is about a single endorsement of Bernie Sanders by the NRA when Sanders first ran for Congress in 1990, 25 years ago, to represent a district in the largely rural and sparsely-populated State of Vermont. In that now long ago campaign, Sanders said only that it should be up to states to decide about a waiting period to buy a gun (all states not being alike, I assume). The story claims that made the NRA a--wait for it--tacit (unspoken) ally of Sanders. (Guess how much good an alleged ally who is silent does a politician? And, if one is a silent ally of a politician, how does a WAPO writer know one is an ally at all.) No mention that, through his years in the House and Senate, the NRA has rated Sanders D- to F. "With friends like that, who needs enemas?" (Apologies to The Road to Wellville.)
Now, if someone sent that link with a cleverly-worded cover letter to a Hillary supporter who is not all that clever, I can see how he or she might conclude that the NRA has been supporting Sanders for the past 25 years and say something like, "Bernie Sanders, of course, long supported by the NRA."
In addition to the NRA stuff, the story repeatedly refers to Democratic Socialist Sanders as a socialist, much as Hillary's campaign surrogates have been doing. Coming from WAPO, a rightist publication, I understand the dumbass red-baiting. But why is a rightist publication going after Sanders on guns?
Some choice quotes from the WAPO story:
That campaign also marked the beginning of Sanderss complicated relationship with the issue of gun rights the one area where Sanderss Democratic presidential rivals have been able to attack him from the left.
In every single race that I have run, with the exception of one, the NRA and the gun lobbies and the people who are most interested in guns supported my opponent, he (Sanders) told ABCs George Stephanopoulos this year.
But now, Cutler (current President of Gun Owners of Vermont) said, when he calls Sanderss office to ask for a meeting, he never gets one. I regret that it happened, he said, because, realistically, we have no input with him.
No thank you. Mr. President and some on DU, I will not become a single issue voter on guns just because that is the ONE issue on which Sanders arguably can be attacked from the left; and I would not do that even if DUers had not been posting for years that I should not be a purist or single issue voter. However, since they have been doing that for years, I point out their unprincipled hypocrisy.
Okay, beloveds. How many odd coincidences did you see in my post
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... than any other Presidential candidate in my 67 years.
merrily
(45,251 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Gee, whatever happened to "don't be a purist"?
Besides, I cannot think of any single (or multiple, honestly) issue that would make me support a candidate who favors war (guns and bombs and dead people, folks!), fracking, the TPP, more H-1B visas, cluster bombs, appallingly invented sniper fire scenarios. Won't happen.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Shocking, maybe. Feeble, no.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Hillary. Which, of course, is why he said it.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)She has made a few comments, and put forth a bullshit plan that has not chance of changing anything. Even the RW'ers are laughing at it
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/05/hillarys-gun-show-loophole-proposal-is-a-joke/
Typical Clinton BS, say something meaningless and then act like the problem is solved.
artislife
(9,497 posts)She was Annie Oakley in the 2008 campaign. The fact that she has stepped out so firmly this last week on guns means she is no longer assuming that she will get the nom. She is alienating general election voters with this stance because she is afraid of Bernie. She is finally trying to go after left votes.
I don't mean to come off as calloused, I voted for the WA state referendum for stricter background checks etc for guns, but if this nation did nothing after Sandy Hook, it will never do anything. Nothing will change on guns and those who love them, will be more afraid to let go of them. They are afraid of government control and they feel they have a right.
I believe in gun control, but the word is CONTROL. There are varying degrees.
merrily
(45,251 posts)So, she is going to grab it and, apparently, Obama, other Democratic politicians and MSNBC are going to help her with that, as well as with everything else.
It's incredible.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)do you have the link?
artislife
(9,497 posts)She knows better, shame on her!
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)You saw my Andrea Mitchell thread yesterday, right?
Funny how the HRC supporters love Andrea now. But they will hate her the next time she attacks Hillary. Mrs. Greenspan is just another tool for the RW.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Even on message boards. Lots of establishment Democratic ones, a couple of what I consider extreme left ones. I guess DU comes closest, but.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground
dae
(3,396 posts)Screw the single issue vote, I'm voting for Bernie b/c of everything he stands for.
Something does need to be done about gun violence in this country and I will support anything a President Sanders does.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Until last week, I could not have imagined a President's asking me to become one.
Sanders has a better record of writing sensible legislation than does Hillary (flag "desecration," really?) and he also has a better record getting legislation written by him passed than Hillary does. So, if we do want new gun laws, Bernie is the better bet.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Bernie is a superior candidate to Hillary in EVERY OTHER WAY so they have to ride the "Bernie is a gun-humper" meme until it's in tatters.
Is Bernie exactly where I want him to be on guns? No.
Am I going to not vote for him -- even though he is 100% in line with everything else I hold vital to the future of our country and our planet -- because he is not where I want him to be on guns?
HELL. NO.
Am I going to push Sanders to become more in line with my views on gun safety?
Oh hell yeah.
merrily
(45,251 posts)are proof of that. Among other things, the head of the Vermont gun owners group complains he can't get Sanders to hear him out.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)on Bernie's gun safety proposals and I agree with all of them.
Some things I would like Bernie to consider:
- Liability insurance
- Permit to purchase, licensing
- Proficiency testing to maintain license
- Criminal charges for owners of unsecured guns used in a crime/death
I think is is LONG past time for that last one -- gun owners might be a little less lax about their fire arms if they knew THEY would be spending time behind bars because of their refusal to properly secure them.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Title is something to the effect of Bernie's plan terrifying the NRA?
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)...all very well said.
merrily
(45,251 posts)corkhead
(6,119 posts)which means that unless I plan to stay home next November, I need to pick the candidate out of the choices I am given who best represents my views.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I would probably vote for Bernie over FDR. As I type that, though, I am mindful that FDR forced the SCOTUS to expand the commerce clause and invented a wheel that, thanks to FDR, no President after FDR had to invent.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)Excellent observations.
merrily
(45,251 posts)thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)I don't think he cares enough about a Hillary victory.
I will take it at face value.
And I will say that such a perspective helps Dems in general. You don't have to be a one issue voter, but luckily, HRC and BS are both on the right side of this, they are both good on the issue, and both can be expected to be better than whoever the Republicans put up. And in local races, it will more often be the Dem who will be better on this issue as well.
Even *if* you think HRC is better on guns, the difference is simply not that great, certainly compared to the other side. Even a one-issue voter doesn't have to pick the very best candidate on that issue to the exclusion of anything else... somebody can simply be good enough to meet a certain bar, and then other things matter.
Honestly, if anyone who cares about gun control really looks at Bernie's positions, I can't imagine very many having any problem with it at all. The "controversy" about it is strictly ginned up by the other side.
merrily
(45,251 posts)there really is nothing to see here. However, I take it one would never know that from reading GD: P.