Why Bernie is the GOP’s Favorite Democrat
Yes, he’s not a Dem at all. You’re catching on. For this reason, the Republicans really like Bernie.
His tour with Tom Perez earned him rave reviews-from Republicans.
Here is Fox News maven A.J. Stoddard:
“That’s a lot of targeting and crafting, and no, it won’t be easy for Clinton to do much without looking self-serving, or bitter. With Sen. Bernie Sanders’ newfound stature in the Democratic Party, despite confirming this week that he actually is not a Democrat, Clinton must be careful not to appear as if she is still competing with the 75-year-old socialist. He is currently, according to polling, the most popular politician in the country.”
“Bill Clinton, according to a report published Monday in The Hill by Parnes, recently told newly elected Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez that he didn’t want the Democrats “to be simply the party of Bernie,” which means it hasn’t yet dawned upon the former president that the party has left the Clintons in the rear-view mirror for good. Sanders is now the draw for many Democratic candidates running for Congress, governorships and state legislatures.”
Hilary was the most popular pol in the country-before she started running and the GOP and media completed their hatchet job on her-along with Putin. Indeed, she would have withstood it all had she Comey not tipped the scales with that indefensible letter October 28.
But GOPers love Bernie. Why? Because he plays right into the old Roger Stone Nixonian playbook:
“I don’t think Stone ever says what policy he is for in this memoir, and he might well consider a focus on policy a distraction. There is only winning and losing an election, and five methods for achieving a victory recur again and again in races that Stone is involved with, four methods that create a mirror maze of confusion, misdirection, and elimination. The first is through association, by having a candidate receive an endorsement from a person or group who potential supporters of the candidate are predisposed to view as an opponent, or through association with something unquestionably malevolent made via protesters, pamphlets, or other means funded by Stone’s campaign but without any fingerprints. The second is by having a group, funded by allied interests, oppose a candidate or policy due to some larger moral principle that everyone can agree on – the issue is not candidate A versus B, but opposition to crime, gambling, or child abuse. The third is the smear, saying your opponent is corrupt, weak, racist, a rapist, a murderer, a pedophile, always helpfully done not through you, the opponent on which this tar might stick, but through a phantom proxy. This last is used very, very often by Stone. The fourth, and one of the most effective, is through fragmentation of the vote. There is, say, overwhelming support for candidate A, who will raise the minimum wage, versus candidate B, who won’t. You split this overwhelming vote by funding another candidate, who wants to raise the minimum wage even higher, and who chastises candidate A for compromising their principles and being beholden to business interests for not asking for a higher wage. Through a vote split, candidate B, the one who says he believes the condition of workers must be improved, but not through easy sounding solutions like a higher minimum wage, scores a victory. At the same time, you make great efforts to keep the votes for your own candidate or issue from being fragmented. The fifth is vote suppression, of black and latino voters, who tend to poll democrat. The first four have been employed in elections that Stone has been involved in, with Stone often taking credit. The fifth has been employed alongside Stone’s efforts, though perhaps without the collusion of Stone.”
Clearly Bernie is now playing right into the fourth very effective technique of voter fragmentation. I mean why would he throw Ossoff under the bus? Makes no sense.
But the most puzzling development this week is Sanders’s decision to keep Georgia special election candidate Jon Ossoff at arms-length. Sanders hasn’t endorsed Ossoff, and in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he seemed to suggest Ossoff’s progressive bona fides were in question.
“If you run as a Democrat, you’re a Democrat,” Sanders said. “Some Democrats are progressive, and some Democrats are not.”
“Sanders qualified this by saying he didn’t know much about Ossoff, so perhaps it should be taken at face value — that he truly doesn’t know enough to make a decision about him. But it’s an odd statement to make about a guy who has been running in such a high-profile race and in whom Democrats have invested so much money and blood, sweat and tears.”
“Perhaps the strangest thing about this is that Sanders isn’t vouching for Ossoff’s progressivism even as he’s doing so for another Democrat of pretty questionable credentials. That would be Omaha mayoral candidate and former state senator Heath Mello, whom Sanders will campaign with Thursday.”
“As the Wall Street Journal’s Reid J. Epstein and Natalie Andrews note, Mello in 2009 sponsored a bill that would require a woman to look at ultrasound images of her fetus before undergoing an abortion (he still opposes abortion rights). Indeed, it’s tough to think of something that progressives would hate more.”
— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) April 20, 2017
Part of it seems to be this strange Bernie rule for what makes you a True Progressive.
On Tuesday, as the tour continued, Perez and Sanders fell in and out of sync. Perez had spent weeks talking up Jon Ossoff, the Democrat trying to win the suburban Atlanta congressional district vacated when Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price joined the Trump administration. After a closer-than-expected April 11 defeat in a Kansas district, Perez thought Democrats needed to “swing at everything.”
Sanders was less interested in the Ossoff race. “He’s not a progressive,” he said. He was endorsing Democrats based on their economic populism; they could differ from progressives on social issues but not on the threat of the mega-rich to American politics. Soon, he said, the 5-to-4 majority on the Supreme Court was likely to make it legal for the wealthy to give unlimited sums to candidates, and the only way to fight back was grass-roots politicking and small donations.”
“If you are running in rural Mississippi, do you hold the same criteria as if you’re running in San Francisco?” he said. “I think you’d be a fool to think that’s all the same.”
That’s actually not a bad point but why does it apply to only social issues? Bernie seems to feel that you can deviate significantly on social issues but not economics. You can be to the Right of the national Dems on social but not economic issues.
What we’re now seeing is that the GOP is trying the same Hillary playbook on Ossoff.
LOL. I would really like to see which "Democrats" "flooded" @GlennThrush's inbox saying "Ossoff was a terrible candidate."
— David Nir (@DavidNir) April 20, 2017
The ‘terrible candidate’ meme-without any actual attempt to explain why that allegedly is. It seems Bernie is going to help them in the character assassination they play for Ossoff.
“It is true that Ossoff’s platform isn’t staunchly progressive. His theory of victory resembles Hillary Clinton’s bet on minority voters and college-educated whites, rather than Sanders’s class-rooted appeal. Clinton narrowly lost the district to Trump, but performed much better there than President Barack Obama did against Mitt Romney in 2012. If Ossoff outperforms Clinton even a little bit, he can win.”
“But Ossoff also wasn’t running to anyone’s right. There was no more progressive option in the jungle primary on Tuesday—no one whom Sanders would have favored over Ossoff—and the race is now a choice between him and a Republican.”
Logically, Bernie should support the most progressive candidate-and in the general that’s always the Democrat. He doesn’t see it that way though.
Because his goal is not to be a united but a divider. If that helps the GOP and Trump that’s fine by Bernie as it’s about his brand not the party or the people suffering materially under Herr Trump.
P.S. As we saw in my poll out last week, the long awaited poll results are in, and right now I’m just 11 points down vs. Peter King (GOP-NY-District 2). And the voters don’t even know who I am yet.
There is nothing more important in getting answers to Trump-Russia collusion than a Democratic House in 2019. Please donate to help me in my part of the effort to fight for a Dem House.
Thank you. We must have a Dem House. And so, we will.