Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-02-20 at 11.46.30 AM
The greatest.

***

  • ***

********


« CNN's town hall meeting: two amusing moments | Main | The GOP: Kaboom! »

January 26, 2016

Comments

Jimiskin

We on the left finally get a candidate we can back enthusiastically, and you and the other naysayers in the party want to stick with the status quo. So very sad. Vote for Hillary to keep the slow decline in place is not a viable Democratic platform.

Bob

Your main point is reasonable, but equating the Tea Party with the Sanders supporters just doesn't work. The original Tea Party was a relatively small group centered around Ron Paul, Sarah Palin and others that made up the Tea Party Patriots and Tea Party Express. It was soon hijacked by Dick Armey's FreedomWorks and the Koch's Americans for Prosperity and turned into an AstroTurf toy for plutocrats and corporations.

Sanders' support is organic and a response to real needs. His people are sincere. They just can't see the country has actually improved significantly over the past 7 years and don't understand practical politics. Even so, It's mostly positive that Bernie is firing them up.

David & Son of Duff

The British Labour party has managed to elect a leader who is somewhat to the Left of Chairman Mao. They are now run by a cabal of extreme (and I do mean EXTREME!) Marxists. The parliamentary party is aghast but the membership, swollen with tens of thousands of mostly young nitwits who swallow all that Leftie stuff without chewing, is in full support. Barring some catastrophe, that should keep the Tories in power for the next 10-15 years.

Whodathunkit?

Oh, and don't think it can't possibly happen 'over there'!

David & Son of Duff

Oh, and I forgot to add that the other unthinkable, that is, the prospect of a fairground huckster taking over the GOP, looks as though it may well happen.

Again, I fear for America!

Peter G

You are perfectly free to back Clinton enthusiastically if you so desire. Or not as you please. But the majority of the groups and factions that actually constitute the Democratic party seem to think that having Clinton as their candidate is a perfectly viable option. I agree with them because I see not the slightest possibility of Sanders achieving any of his stated goals, even the good ones, and I also think many of his proposals are thoroughly pointless and some counter productive. Being enthusiastic about bad policies doesn't make them good policies.

I don't agree with Clinton about all her policies either but on balance I'd take Clinton.

Peter G

The Bernccupy Washington Movement proceeds apace. There are enough disciples to fill the Mall in Washington and more. What there are not enough to do is change the make up of either the House or the Senate in a way that would make any dreams come true. They might make the Democratic party a little redder but only if they joined in and stopped trying to purge it of the majority of people who make it up.

Bob

I think you meant bluer or more liberal. Red is for Republican. There's no irony in them having the same color as the USSR since they're still obsessed with it and love the old Soviet political techniques.

Jason

Curious, which of the GOP candidates isn't a fairground huckster?

Jason

I'm leaning toward Clinton, mainly for her foreign policy expertise--where Presidents actually do have direct and immense influence. I've been impressed with the detail and acumen with which she's handled foreign policy questions in debates/interviews/town halls. Otherwise, I just need a warm body to veto whatever inane GOP domestic legislation is going to cross the Oval Office desk. Now if Sanders was going to lead to more down ticket changes than Clinton, that might sway me, but so far I don't see that happening.

Tom Benjamin

I think everyone on the left can agree that income inequality is a real issue. That issue can be addressed without declaring war on capitalism and corporate America.

The President - even Bernie Sanders - will spend 90% of his time on other issues. Whenever he is asked a foreign policy question his response is to say "I voted against the Iraq war," and pivot right back to income inequality.

The "status quo"? What does that mean? I'm a pensioner and the past seven years have given the US the best government of my lifetime. I don't expect that status quo to continue post Obama, but yeah, I'd be happy with more of approximately the same.

I definitely do not want to abandon a winning approach to this election - defend the Obama record and promise more of the same - to adopt a losing approach - the "war on capitalism" campaign Sanders wants to run. Not when I'm sure Sanders will lose that war even if he wins the election.

There is a downside to supporting Sanders and there is no upside.

(I could be convinced that the country is in slow decline but if it is, it is because we are closing in on limits to growth. It is not the form of government causing the decline, it is resource depletion and environmental degradation.)

Peter G

Pardon me. You are correct. Although we don't drive on the wrong side of the road red means Liberal and blue means conservative in Canuckistan.

Bob

I'll never drink another Labatt Blue.

David stetson

I never thought I would see the Democrat party tell the people that have faithfully supported them to "take the lesser of two evils". The obivious problem with this "Clintonesque" opinion is it wrongfully claims Sanders won't be able to compromise with the GOP while Clinton will be successful. Neither is true. Sanders won't get everything he is shooting for but will be able to lay groundwork for future progressives. Clinton lacks credibility and vision. She is the democratic version of the prevent defense... A sure loser.

Peter G

Sanders is equally capable of compromising with the Republicans. All he will have to do to achieve that is abandon every single one of his campaign promises. And any progress he does achieve will be exactly what Clinton offers as possibility, incremental improvement. Basically he is offering to set new standards for disappointing the left. You should ask him that question directly. Is it his plan to promise the moon and the stars and then compromise his way to something else?
I ask that myself because I just watched for eight years as the very same people piled crap on the president for not doing things they imagined he had promised to do. For the record I do not think Clinton is the lesser of two evils. As far as policy and politics goes she is Sanders' superior is just about every way.

Pablo

Stick with Molson's green.

The comments to this entry are closed.