Where was Bernie today?

[EffieBlack]

"Toward the end of the process, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., stood and asked if any senator would stand with House members, but none did."

Bernie's been very vocal lately about criticizing the Democrats. So why didn't he speak up today when it really mattered?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/biden-declares-it-is-over-as-he-declares-trump-the-winner/article/2611113

[elleng]

1. Same reason none of the other Senators did.

[EffieBlack]

2. But isn't Bernie supposed to be different from the rest? Stronger, braver, tougher, more independent

That's what we've been told over and over.

So, now he's just one of the crowd?

[Cha]

10. Touche'

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. +1. Great question. I'll await the answer, but I suspect it may never come. nt

[sheshe2]

22. Oh snap.

[JCanete]

37. what would he have been standing up to? The problem is Trump still won the electoral college. That

kind of should be honored on principle. Is it stupid that the majority voters don't win in this country? Yes, but its been like that forever, and post election LOSS is not the right fucking time to tackle that. As to50 illegitimate electors, would getting them disqualified have mattered if they just got replaced? The result was going to be the same.

There is no reason to appear petty. That will just be used against the Democrats as the party that cried wolf when they go after real matters.

Just saying "he's a maverick right? and does mavericky anti-establishment things right...so why not this..." is really really really silly. His focus isn't all over the map. It is about the money. It is about corporate influence on policy. You want to simply make him out to be a hater, and since you could give a shit about his actual message, you see no reason why he shouldn't insert himself into even pointless attention grabbing fights like this one.

[George II]

68. Standing up and questioning the Electoral College vote wouldn't have changed the outcome...

...of the election. But it would have given Democrats an opportunity to discuss the circumstances behind that result.

By not having that 2-hour formal debate many things that happened in the last few weeks of the campaign will not be in the Congressional Record.

You talk about his "focus" and it being "about the money" - what legislation has he written and introduced, much less gotten passed, in his 25+ years in the House and Senate that could or would have done something on that issue? Oh, he's "co-sponsored" bills written and introduced by others, but what has HE done other than tag along on others' shirt tails?

I'll save you the trouble, here's the list:

[JCanete]

72. Because he has been advocating for things that nobody else was on board with or willing to entertain

You might want to consider that his relatively low legislative achievement according to your metric of success had had to do with that reality. He may have determined that using his vote as leverage to affect legislation, he was more effective than writing bills that would die without ever seeing the light of day.

He used his role to be a thorn in the side of the wheeling and dealing, and to speak truth to power, and I think, given that they certainly weren't going to help him do more than that, he used his position as effectively as it could have been used.

What cosponsorship could he have gotten on bills about the money? To think that all legislation and ideology is equal in Washington and that all Bills are capable there in the inner sanctum, without outside pressure clamoring at the gates, is truly living in Pollyanna land.

BUT, who fucking cares. I'm not actually interested into trying to defend Sanders at every turn. What I like about him, and would still like about him more than the rest of the field, if he himself even had seriously complicated baggage, is that he has really been the only one to talk about the money affecting not just our elections but our policies, and that he has been able to get that message heard. I would still prefer him because he is talking about social improvements to our system that aren't middling, but are dramatic, and have become possible just by getting them into the national discourse. Hey lookie over there! New York just adopted free college for people making under 125 thousand.

[George II]

73. His low level of legislative achievement isn't a "metric", it's a fact.

There are 100 members of the Senate, the vote of one lone Senator is not going to result in much "leverage", if any, or affect legislation. In fact, that has even been used as an excuse by him and his supporters for some questionable votes of his, "well, it would have passed anyway", etc. So much for the leverage factor.

On the other hand, writing and introducing bills puts his so-called issues on stage, whether they're passed or not. This excuse in a sense is similar to the one above, "well, it wouldn't get passed anyway so why bother introducing it".

Yes, he talks about money affecting politics, but that's about all he does - he rarely if ever follows up with any action. That has been one of the criticisms of Sanders - a lot of talk, no action. And you're here saying exactly that. Yes, he's talking about social improvements but what has he ever done to actually implement any of those improvements? Again, rarely if ever.

You're right, partially, New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed a plan for free tuition at state colleges (they didn't "adopt" it!), and characteristically who was by his side trying to take credit for it? Senator Bernard Sanders!!!

( http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/nyregion/free-tuition-new-york-colleges-plan.html?_r=0 0

So tell me, why wasn't Sanders in VERMONT working with HIS governor to come up with a plan for free tuition for state colleges? Was that stage not big enough?

[JCanete]

74. He was invited to be by his side...you think sanders just showed up and said "is this seat taken?"

That is some FOX NEWS level spin, and is not becoming. As to Vermont, Sanders is a US Senator not a state Senator, and Vermont has a Republican Governor.

I am saying that the talking has to come first and that it has to reach the public. That without it the establishment has no interest in changing...no need to deviate from the status quo. I think we have pretty damn good evidence of that over the last 30 years. When there isn't a populist push for something, you mostly just get a steady erosion of good policy and regulations.

In that environment, because it is rarely about convincing people of good legislation, and usually about "convincing" them of it by making sure their lobbyists are happy and their constituencies are either getting something out of it or are not going to tar and feather the politician for it, little change can get achieved by a lone voice...

and still I'd rather that lone voice be there if just to point out the sicknesses in the bills that do make it through committees.

But again, I have no interest in combing through his record to show you why he was a model politician and actually used every ounce of his position at its best capacity, because again, in a sea of politicians with not so stellar records for one thing or the other,
what I care about--because it really is the most important-- is that he is saying things that most of our elected officials have been ignoring for the last 30 years, AND for whatever miraculous reason, he is finally being heard. And, case in point, the public hears him and finally after all his time in Washington, the establishment Dems start to hear him. It just doesn't work the other way around.

Hell, I supported Edwards even though I never quite trusted him...he was so slick and kind of smarmy, and if memory serves, I don't think his record was consistent with his rhetoric...but given the playing field and that he was the ONLY one saying "fuck compromise, we can't work with the GOP, we have to fight them"...you know...the thing we're finally saying today...he was absolutely my pick for President. He was right about the one thing that we needed a politician to be right about. It sucks that he sucked. It sucks that he ended up betraying those who voted for him by being so arrogant. And of course, knowing what I know about him now, I would not have supported him because he could have harmed his message rather than furthered it, and gotten a Republican elected...but the message is what mattered.

In Sander's case, the message is spreading, not dying...at least for now, and he has demonstrated that his own packaging is not a poison pill for it.

[George II]

75. Yes, Sanders is a US Senator, not a State Senator, but he's a US Senator from VERMONT, not New York.

And you're correct, Vermont has a republican Governor, a republican governor who has been in office for all of three days - he was sworn in on Thursday.

For the six years prior to that Vermont had a Democratic Governor, Peter Shumlin. So let me ask again, where's the action? In your long post above you talk about lots of things that Sanders said, but not one single example of what he has actually done.

PS - I resent your comment about what I presented as being "Fox News spin", it was uncalled for.

[JCanete]

77. okay, I retract it, but I also resent your characterization that seems unmerited under the

circumstances. I fully admit a shitty job researching the governorship, but it wasn't that germane to my point anyway, so I didn't do due diligence.

The point about New York is that it was his promotion of it at an AUDIBLE National Level, AND IMPORTANTLY, Clinton's adoption of it in her platform as a primary concession, that made this a possibility. Vermont, on the other hand, has not taken it up, which is again, not Sanders actual role to make happen any more than he could have directly done it in New York.

[NWCorona]

39. But what does that have to do with this story?

The fact that no one else signed on should be enough for most to understand except for the most ardent Bernie haters.

Did Maxine Waters call out Bernie specifically?

[BlueCaliDem]

52. Dang! Spot on, EB. eom

[TCJ70]

60. Your made up narrative certainly makes it look that way...

...but hey, you vehemently supported the person who suggested not even trying things because they're hard. So you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

[JCanete]

63. among those was free college, which she ended up adding to her platform, which New York just

adopted for the State. Apparently these things are doable when you stop pretending they aren't.

[womanofthehills]

70. He needs to concentrate on things he can have an effect on like Medicare

why waste his time on a done deal.

[pkdu]

3. No - cos he's the leader of the Revolut...i..o.. fuck it.

He claims ( or at least his supporters do) to be out there leading the charge against Trump ( in ways meaningful AND symbolic )

[EffieBlack]

9. Today he lost whatever credibility he had left. He talks a good game, but didn't utter a peep when

it really mattered.

[pkdu]

14. Yep. Agreed. nt

[NWCorona]

40. So did every sitting Dem senator lose any credibility?

Someone's hate is showing.

[elleng]

48. Yes, many of them did,

until we hear the rational. and again, MANY's hate is showing.

[NWCorona]

50. I can appreciate the consistency.

[EffieBlack]

59. Yes, they did - but not as much as the guy who's supposed to be such a revolutionary

and castigates other Democrats for being too pragmatic and afraid to take a stand.

I'm not surprised by most of the other Democrats' failure to act since that's how they usually act. I am surprised by Bernie who's supposed to be different. And saying "but THEY didn't do anything EITHER!" doesn't cut it.

[tecelote]

30. People that voted for Bernie and then Hillary always say...

"I voted for Hillary and supported her". We're trying to move forward.

Yet, so many hate Bernie. Outright vitriol any time his name is mentioned.

Our priority should be coming together... to save the world.

[elleng]

49. Yes indeed, our priority should be coming together.

[BlueCaliDem]

53. You as a staunch Bernie Sanders supporter...did you vote for Hillary in the GE?

[elleng]

54. I staunchly supported Governor O'Malley,

and after he was forced out, my 'support' went to Senator Sanders. Finally I recognized need to vote for Secretary Clinton. Satisfied?

[BlueCaliDem]

56. You're correct. You were for O'Malley. My apologies. I forgot that part.

And yes, although it doesn't matter in the greater scheme of politics, I'm satisfied.

[HassleCat]

4. Isn't it obvious?

He's not a Real Democrat. He hates Hillary. He's intent on dividing the party. He only cares about his own ego. And so on and so forth.

This reminds me so much of blaming Nader for Gore's loss. Heap vitriol on a scapegoat and ignore the behavior of the Real Democrats. I suppose it makes people feel good to do this, but it will not help us.

[George II]

6. Based on his earlier writings, I think he probably resents being defeated by a woman.

[EffieBlack]

7. So, why do YOU think that he didn't speak up today?

[HassleCat]

11. For the same reason none of the others did.

It's a futile quest, and they want to pick their battles.

[EffieBlack]

13. So speaking up and standing with the CBC members on something this important was a "futile quest?"

Got it.

But during the primary, Bernie and his supporters were full of sanctimonious lectures about why Hillary was a "sellout" because she didn't fight for certain things that would never have occurred. Bernie bellowed and waved his fist and insisted that the fight was important. When Hillary picked her battles, she was a corporatist, oligarch without principles or backbone.

But today, Bernie couldn't be bothered to get up from his seat and say, "I object" because it was "futile?"

Bernie's full of it.

[HassleCat]

15. Bernie, Bernie, Bernie!

It's already happening, just as I predicted. Everything is Bernie's fault. I expect to see a post revealing how Bernie substituted sugar pills for Trump's mom's birth control pills.

[EffieBlack]

16. Who said anything about "everything being Bernie's fault?"

I simply asked why Bernie did not stand up for principle today when members of the Congressional Black Caucus begged one Senator to stand up and join their objection to Trump's Electoral College vote.

No - the man who yelled last year to his adoring crowds about the revolution he was going to lead today sat on his ass and didn't say a word.

[HassleCat]

19. Is the number 44 significant?

Actually, you make a good point. Sanders may be doing the wrong thing with his revolution, but he's doing something, not sitting on his ass. The reason nobody made an objection is because they knew it was a waste of time. It's so curious that so many people are on Sanders like a blanket, but say nothing of the 44 Democrats who "set on their asses."

[EffieBlack]

31. Because those Democrats haven't set themselves up to be mavericks who buck the "establishment"

Bernie is supposed to be different than those other Democrats - isn't that what makes him so "special?"

Funny to see the same people who idolized Bernie because he supposedly ALWAYS fought for what's right even when it wasn't "pragmatic" and seemed to be an impossible cause - and attacked Hillary for being a sellout when she picked HER battles - now defend Bernie for remaining silent and not speaking up for what's right because the "establishment" Democrats didn't do anything either.

[BlueCaliDem]

55. No Democratic Senator spoke negatively about President Obama, either. Bernie did. He even

lied about the sitting president in 2011. NO sitting Democratic Senator did.

Now you're trying to claim that just because other Democratic Senators didn't stand up (we expected as much) Bernie is absolved for not doing so, too? THIS while he had no problem criticizing President Obama for months during PBO's re-election campaign??

I thought Sanders would use the same bombastic tactics he used against Hillary Clinton during the primaries on tRump. I have yet to see him do that, and when he didn't stand with Black House Dems in calling out the corruption in the EC results, I was flabbergasted as well as deeply disappointed.

If any Senator had the creds to stand with House Dems to object to the EC results, it was Sanders, and he failed.

[brush]

26. Huh? You seem to contradict the first part of you post with what you wrote in the second part.

[NWCorona]

41. If he's intent on dividing the Democrats then why was he appointed to a Dem leadership position?

[ucrdem]

47. This would have been a good opportunity to show leadership. nt

[George II]

5. There are a lot of books to be sold.

[leftofcool]

8. Books to hawk?

[Buckeye_Democrat]

17. Bernie had other issues to deal with.

[narnian60]

57. Hee hee.

[tonedevil]

18. At least you...

will always have your Senator Sanders hatred to keep you warm.

[NWCorona]

42. Very warm

[Mike Nelson]

20. I must admit...

...Bernie standing up with Maxine Waters would have been a powerful and long-lasting image.

[uponit7771]

27. +1

[ucrdem]

21. Where was Bernie in 2004?

Where was he in 2000? Where was he last November?

p.s. here's where Maxine Waters was last June:

[sheshe2]

23. I love Maxine Waters.

She stands for us.

Thanks ucrdem.

[ucrdem]

24. She is fearless.

She's fought many a battle and is always ready for the next one. She picked a winner too!

p.s.

[sheshe2]

62. Hey you....

[ucrdem]

64. heya sheshe!

If the first week is any indication it's going to be a very strange year, sigh

[True_Blue]

25. Seriously!

Almost everyday he blames the Democrats for losing the election. All that does is legitimize this Russian coup.

[uponit7771]

28. +1

[monmouth4]

29. I believe Bernie was in Ft. Lauderdale and stuck in the chaos down here. Sorry to interrupt your

Bernie bashing.

[EffieBlack]

32. Link?

[monmouth4]

33. It was mentioned in the tv coverage on MSNBC..n/t

[onenote]

34. Can't be true

The joint session to count electoral college votes was scheduled to begin at 1 pm, and as typically is the case, took less than an hour to complete, even with the House objections.

Direct flights from Fort Lauderdale to DC take 2 and a half hours. The first reports of shots fired came just before 1 pm. So if Bernie wanted to be in DC for the vote counting, he would have had to be in the air long before the shooting started.

[monmouth4]

35. I can only report what I heard, sorry..n/t

[onenote]

36. You could acknowledge that the facts don't square with what you heard.

[NWCorona]

43. Would you like his itinerary?

[onenote]

45. if it shows how he could be caught in Fort Lauderdale

because of an event occurring around 1 and still have planned to be in DC before 1, yes.

Because I've always been fascinated by time travel.

[Ligyron]

38. IDK, that's a good question.

BTW, where was Liz Warren, etc.?

Maybe he, Bernie, was at a gun rally bashing BLM?

Or in Lauderdale helping that idiot load his weapon.

Honestly, this hatred of Sen Sanders by some here is so silly and counter productive.

The "It's that mean, sexist Sen. Sanders who prevented our queen's coronation!" misses the fact that we ran a candidate wrongfully disliked by so many that we flat lost. Our folly in this may well be the undoing of this grand experiment in Democracy we call the USA.

Comey, the unanswered, unchallenged long-term brainwashing of half the public by a RW media machine and the Russian's interference had way more to do with this disaster than anything Sanders could have done even if he tried.

The DNC's corruption from the top and shortsightedness certainly didn't help either.

We best figure this out - and quick or we are truly doomed as a party and a people.

[hollowdweller]

44. He probably didn't want to insult the segment of Trump voters that could be reached

There is a small segment of voters that swing back and forth. Clinton sent a crucial margin to Obama when Bill said the thing about "Jesse Jackson won SC" in the primary.

Obama sent some to the other side when he said the "Clinging to Guns and Religion"

Clinton sent some to Trump with the "Deplorables" thing.

Now if the dems had some coordinated strategy they had been working on since the election to discredit the Trump win based on the Russian hacking then this might be appropriate but IMO doing it now just risks losing more future votes.

[EffieBlack]

61. He doesn't want to insult Trump voters so he turned his back on a loyal Democratic base

Got it.

So, I guess that means all the "Bernie's picking his battles and holding his fire" defenses are just bullshit since ANYTHING Bernie might do to stand up to Trump is likely to insult his voters and we can't let THAT happen, can we?

Wow.

[NWCorona]

46. ...

[DLevine]

51. Primary is over. I respectfully suggest we focus on Putin's Poodle

and the KGOP. They are the real threat.

[azmom]

58. It's over. Time to regroup.

[4bucksagallon]

65. Where were the other Senators in the party?

Sounds like the rest of the Democrats knew this was a lose lose situation. I don't hear you disparaging them.. Why pick on Bernie? Never mind I think anyone that reads this forum knows the answer. Hate is such a winning strategy for bringing new people into the party, isn't it?

[EffieBlack]

66. Not "picking on" Bernie. Bernie held himself out as different, better, beyond the others

Bernie - by his and his supporters own claim - is supposed to be a maverick, a revolutionary, unafraid to go against the crowd of "Establishment" Democrats to say and do what is right, even if it's unpopular or hard or if the goal seems impossible.

But when he has the opportunity to do that but doesn't, the excuse is that "no one else did it either" and we who ask about it are accused of "picking on Bernie."

So, Bernie claims to be a rebel, but he's really a sheep - and a snowflaky one, at that ...

Got it.

[treestar]

67. Because of the people here claiming Bernie was the best leader

the very bigly best. He is a real leader no? The others don't claim that.

[DFW]

69. Sanders is not some "other Senator in the Party." He is not in our party at all.

He caucuses with the Democrats, but misses no opportunity to remind everyone he is not one. Except for a few months during the primary season, we have not succeeded in "bringing" Bernie Sanders into the Democratic Party. That's not hating Sanders or anyone else, just citing the record.

[QC]

71. He's a meanie!!1!!11

[JCanete]

82. its irrelevant, we aren't a cult. policies and ideas, not to mention that caucusing,

transcends the importance of a pretty D on someone's jersey.

[HassleCat]

78. This again?

The Bernie hating just keeps rolling in, wave after wave. I would think, sooner or later, most people would let go of the anger and think about where we go from here. This is kind of discouraging, and I hope it abated pretty soon.

[EffieBlack]

79. Holding him accountable for walking his talk is not "Bernie hate"

[HassleCat]

80. Yes, it is, actually.

When he is singled out for every last little perceived sin or error, when people target him and then offer the excuse that he sought a high profile, when DU is filled with posts that just pick, pick, pick at everything he does. I suspect this is why Hillary is still laying low, so she won't be subjected to all the sniping from disgruntled Bernie Bros.

[JCanete]

81. His talk has not been to disavow the electoral college, or to waste energy pointing at Russia

as the determining factor in our election, when it is always the big money here at home that king-makes, and absolutely did it again this cycle. He does talk about the corporate media's role in our fucked up election systems, and that is a far more appropriate place to spend our energy, along with figuring out how to reach those people that the media is continuing to misinform.

[SMC22307]

83. Taking Trump, Preibus, Republicans, et al. to task for possible cuts to...

Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare. Addressing income inequality. Nailing Republicans on their goal of repealing the ACA, along with blasting Big Pharma on soaring profits and unaffordable drugs. Pointing out that many conservatives agree with having a minimum wage, but that their GOP representatives aren't listening to them. Highlighting the disproportionate use of police force against AAs versus other members of society. Thanking the First Lady for her service. Shall I go on?

[EffieBlack]

84. He was doing all that at 1 pm on Friday?

Wow.

But, funny thing. The CBC members and their colleagues who were objecting to the count have also been doing those things AND they still managed to stand up on Friday and object to the count in order to prompt a much needed floor debate. Too bad that Bernie couldn't bother himself to join them.