DNC to consider resolution urging Bernie Sanders, Angus King to run as Dems

[Jose Garcia]

Source: The Hill

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) will consider a member’s resolution this week that calls on independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt) and Angus King (Maine) to run as Democrats in 2018.

The resolution, sponsored by California DNC member Bob Mulholland, lauds both senators’ contributions “to key Democratic caucuses,” but argues that the DNC has to focus on electing Democrats up and down the ticket.

“Therefore, be it resolved, that the DNC recognizes the important contributions of the independent Senators from Maine and Vermont to causes at the heart of the Democratic party’s mission and urge them to run as Democrats,” the draft of the resolution states, before calling on “candidates and voters who share common goals and beliefs with Democrats to register or affiliate with the Democratic party in 2017, 2018 and beyond.”

“A strong and unified Democratic party with strong candidates from diverse backgrounds puts us in the best position to win elections up and down the ticket in 2018 and beyond,” the draft adds.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/355995-dnc-to-consider-resolution-urging-bernie-sanders-angus-king-to-run-as-dems

[yallerdawg]

1. See?

We DID learn something from the 2016 Democratic primary!

[Bleacher Creature]

2. It's about time.

I've about had it with supppsed allies spending so much time trashing the party. And even when they're not explicitly trashing us, the implicit message of not registering as a Democrat is that the party is fundamentally flawed.

Look, I'm not suggesting blind allegiance to the Democratic Party. But it's the only party we've got in a system that is designed to function with only two major parties. I also recognize that a huge majority of the time, our elected Democrats are worthy of our respect.

If King and Sanders want to make the party better, great! But join the damn party and help make those changes from the inside. Otherwise, all they'll do is to continue giving cover to the Republicans.

[trueblue2007]

28. Bleacher Creature /// I totally agree with your comment: "It's about time." (your exact words. )

[LS_Editor]

3. So caucusing with the party isn't enough? They were critical in stopping Obamacare repeal.

This is counterproductive and promotes conflict by design.

[elleng]

5. Exactly.

[padah513]

7. +1

I said the same thing yesterday.

[Hortensis]

4. Well, let's see what happens with this vote. If it were to pass,

Last edited Wed Oct 18, 2017, 02:47 PM - Edit history (1)

it would then go on for a full vote. Even then, it'd be as a courteous, inclusive gesture. Few Democrats would want this, certainly virtually none in the DNC or party leadership.

You know, considering how 2016 went, I'm inclined to think Sanders would do much better running as an independent. Seriously. I think some people don't understand how many Democrats would have taken note of his 2015-2016 behaviors, and since. We most of us tend to be quiet participants, and very, very few of us attend rallies or make noise on social media. But, mainstream Democrats of many factions outnumber Sanders' residual followers in very large numbers and, to put it gently, he's not unknown to Democrats now. He has a history.

Speaking of, there is the matter of the endorsements of powerful Democrats, Democratically aligned groups (like Planned Parenthood...), and delegates that he would have to have to become candidate. In spite of perhaps starting better due to name recognition, picking up a handful more this time initially, then what? He has a big history with these people who pay big attention. They contain very, very few admirers, and those are the only ones who'd feel they owed him more than a bottle of water and a call to 911 if he were broken down at the side of the road.

Think independent -- proudly independent. He could be 2020's Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, and Bernie Sanders.

[JHan]

17. ;) ++++++++++++

[Me.]

6. Dems Wake Up

Good news

[GaryCnf]

8. Google Bob Mulholland

He's not exactly Mr. Party Unity. (Oh, and in case you didn't know already, he doesn't give a FRA about Angus King)

[BainsBane]

14. How is it that "unity" is continually evoked

to promote people who are not Democrats, like those mentioned in the OP, or those like Stein and Sarandon who actively work to defeat Democrats? Yet if anyone dares to object to statements proclaiming Democrats worse than the GOP or attacks on Democratic voters, they are told they are promoting division.

And here you are, objecting to the suggestion that two independents seek Democratic nominations in their home states, making a bizarro-world claim that it and its advocates violate "party unity."
It would seem that unity for you has nothing to do with the Democratic party. Then of course there was your post yesterday making a series of vitriolic and demonstrably false claims toward anyone who is not part of team Bernie.

You are free to devote yourself to one man's political aspirations. but don't pretend that party unity is achieved by declaring enmity toward anyone who doesn't share that goal. You won't find me signing on to the politics of personality, regardless of the man in question. I believe in making decisions about who should represent me at election time, based on an assessment of all their candidates, their policy proposals and qualifications. As old-fashioned as it may be, I believe that their role is to represent us, not ours to defer to and promote them.

[GaryCnf]

21. You must have me confused with someone else

Perhaps you have a link to a post from yesterday where I demanded fealty to "one man's political aspirations" . . . perhaps even to one of the reasoned responses pointing out the dogmatic nature of my position?

I do recall that I questioned whether ALL women, not merely ones who hold negative opinions of Senator Sanders, are being respected when one of the most prominent black women activist in the country for our side (and, as a matter admittedly insignificant in the big picture, a personal friend) is being attacked in the most pejorative terms for being part of a leadership group inviting Senator Sanders to speak at the Detroit Conference, for announcing that invitation, and for defending that invitation. I also recall that just this day I joined in the erudite observations of one of the most vocal critics of that invitation that, not only could it not be more appropriate that the disagreement over Senator Sanders' appearance was worked out by women and for women, but that the end result itself could not have been better.

As for Bob Mulholland, I stand by advice. People may judge for themselves whether Mr. Mulholland truly wishes to invite Senator Sander to our official fold or whether he, as have many here, is proposing this "invitation" as a litmus test which Senator Sanders must pass if he is to seek the 2020 Democratic nomination.

[BainsBane]

24. link

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029717315

You claimed that those critical of Bernie's placement as headliner at a woman's convention and who didn't support Bernie had never spoken out in support of Black Lives Matter and had insisted Colin Kaepernick should not kneel. While that may be true in some cases, it certainly isn't true for the women I know or see post on DU. You also insisted those who did not sign on to team Bernie dishonestly failed to recognize that the only racist comments made in defense of Bernie were by Russian bots. I tried to post a reply but could not, for reasons that are clear from the link. I wondered how you claimed absolute knowledge of all the words of all Sanders supporters across America and why you felt so proprietary toward them, but then that aspect of political tribalism is not unfamiliar. Still, I find it puzzling. I said I had no doubt that Russian bots sowed division by resorting to racism and other malevolent arguments. However, I know that some of those invoking questionable arguments were known to DUers for many years, long before the Russian operation. Most no longer post at DU. Among the arguments was the claim repeated on multiple occasions that the majority of African Americans (and 85% of black women) suffered from Stockholm syndrome, that Black Lives Matter was a George Soros funded conspiracy, who insisted those protesters had a responsible to remain silent in Sanders presence, that he was too important to be questioned by them, and voters of color merely asking how he would address issues relevant to them amount to the "Southern Strategy" and "race baiting." Women concerned about reproductive rights were declared "weak" for wanting to hear him speak to that issue. Of course when he did so surrounding the Mello endorsement, we learned that those rights were too "divisive" to be a priority for the party, something repeated by his supporters multiple times on this site. It was not those women who booed John Lewis at the Democratic National Convention, maligned Dolores Huerta, or launched a campaign to defund Planned Parenthood and thereby deprive the poorest women in America reproductive healthcare. It was not they who seized upon the election of Trump as an opportunity to argue that civil rights and reproductive rights should be rolled back so that we could focus on "what really matters," or more accurately, who really matters (themselves). And it is not they who are working to transform the primary system to one of caucuses, which have the lowest voter turnout of any system and by far the lowest participation among the poor, people of color, shift workers, the elderly, and disabled. I've brought that last one up to you before, yet I don't recall your expressing any concern about it. Instead, your ire remains focused on those who fail to prioritize Bernie.

In yesterday's post, you presented the same hierarchical view of human worth as you did a few months when you insisted, based on no knowledge other that I wasn't a fan of Bernie, that people like me would be relegated to the ash heap of history. It appears that same hierarchy underlies your proclamation of one of the conference organizers as "the most prominent black woman activist in the country." Unlike yourself, I don't claim omniscience of the vast universe of social media comments, but I can say the posts I've read have revolved around two main points: 1) the organizers having solicited donations under false pretenses, waiting until after the refund date to announce Sanders' role, and then refusing to return funds to women who felt mislead by what transpired. 2) The message sent by declaring a man the headliner, particularly when that man, despite a strong voting record, has not been a champion of women's rights and has even argued that they should be de-prioritized. That message has taken hold, as we see very clearly from the legions of posts and tweets insisting that we must accept Bernie's determination of what we should care about, and that anyone who disagrees that he is the best spokesperson for us is an "anti-progressive" whose views don't matter.

I can't speak to Bob Mulholland, but I will say I do not think it unreasonable to expect candidates for the Democratic nomination to be members of the Democratic party. The goal must be the election of our nominees, and for that to be secondary to personal ambition or tribe hurts that effort. I make that point in a general way because I won't pretend that Bernie's joining the party will alter my view of him. We certainly have seen demands for any number of litmus tests, but the idea that there might be one to actually be a Democrat bothers you. To claim that is about "party unity" is absurd. Unity around the campaigns of independents is not Democratic Party unity.

If you argued for any of the issues around Black Lives Matter and racial equality that your post eluded to, I think you would find substantial support from those you describe as the opposition. Except everything is filtered through the lens of Bernie supporters vs the rest. In terms of what I see you write here, I have yet to see you prioritize anything over Bernie and his supporters.

[GaryCnf]

25. Wow that is so cool!

I get a post hidden based on the accusation that it was "refighting the primary" but you get to pull it up, link to it and REFIGHT THE PRIMARY when you know I can't fight back AND that no one can see for themselves whether you accurately characterized what I said. (Btw, how you aren't violating the TOS by linking to a hidden post is beyond me, but I don't make the rules.)

Well have fun. I won't engage. It was decided that I was refighting the primary and I took it to heart. Even though I won't alert on you because alerting opposing views is BS, I'm not getting another hide.

If you want to talk about what the party needs to do to inspire black voters (a subject which, unlike the merits of women-specific issues, I do have standing to discuss), I deleted the primary refighting portions and reposted the part about black turnout with some modifications because I think it's a critical issue in the upcoming elections. It got one substantive response so far.

Your choice.

[questionseverything]

26. i am interested in ur op but didnt see it

link it for me pls

here is mine that no one sees either

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029722275

[BainsBane]

32. You demanded I post the link

quite disingenuously, knowing that the text was no longer there. I provided the link you requested.

You took it to heart. I'll bet. You'll have to forgive me if I don't find that convincing, particularly since you express no regrets about declaring me and tens of millions of Americas as belonging to the ash heap of history" for failing to revere one man.

I would never presume to claim what should inspire black people or what they should care about, since I have no desire to be a complete fucking asshole. You won't catch me insisting black voters suffer from Stockholm Syndrome because they don't share my voting priorities. I happen to think the appropriate thing to do is listen, not mandate. And we certainly have seen a group of African American women petition the DNC to make clear that they feel increasingly marginalized by efforts to orient the party toward white men and away from the lives of "identity politics" Americans. Based on that and other accounts I've heard from my friends, a number of African Americans hear that as exclusionary, as a message that they aren't wanted. Not all of course. Nina Turner actively calls for returning to the party of FDR, ignoring that fact that was also the party of the Klan and Jim Crow, of a president who refused to act against lynchings because he didn't want to upset Southern whites. It was also a time of back alley abortions and women as de facto property of their husbands, when spousal rape was legal and married women were denied any right to own property. A president born to the aristocracy who worked as a Wall Street financier and raised the majority of his campaign funds from Wall Street is superior to the party that allows a black man to be president and, worse yet, allowed a woman to run to succeed him. While I certainly have no expertise in what might motivate black voters, I tend to think hearkening back to the glory days of segregation probably doesn't help.

There was plenty in my post you could have discussed entirely unrelated to the primary, but unsurprisingly you ignore the content. (Though the fact you identify my content as related to the primary tells me you recognize some of the behavior I recounted, which means your post linked above was highly selective at best.) One point relates to your point about motivating black voters. How do you suppose active voter suppression campaigns led by the likes of Nomiki Const achieve that goal? How have you missed the fact that their goal is to ensure those voters are shut out of the process of selecting Democratic nominees? What do you suppose the purpose of demanding that primaries be replaced by caucuses is? What do you suppose her tweets insisting the Democratic Party lacks "diversity" for not being viewed favorably enough by white men? But why concern yourself with any of that? Who cares about voting rights anyway? What matters is that the electorate be chosen in order to produce the desired result.

[GaryCnf]

33. Nice explosion of Bernie hate

Do you feel better?

Like I said before, I am not going to refight the primary, even if if gives you free rein to spin what I said to fit your fantasy of who supports leftist policies.

It's too bad, I learned a valuable lesson about judging when so many of the people attacking Tamika Mallory stood up for her even though Senator Sanders was still left in a prominent role after women listened to women and decided as women. I learned even more when they stood up for her over the airline racism and misogyny. I learned that we are not nearly so ideologically divided as it sometimes appears here.

As for black voters, the subject of my hidden post and the subject of my revamped un-hidden post, talking to someone who has been involved in one way or another in the liberation movement for 5+ decades isn't being presumptuous, it's listening.

[Me.]

30. Wow Bains!

[left-of-center2012]

9. Apparently it's just one member's resolution.

The DNC will consider it.

From the linked article:
"It’s unclear whether the resolution will pass out of the DNC’s resolutions committee ..."

King and Sanders ran, and were elected, by their constituents as "Independents".

They may not like being 'urged' to change their affiliation.

(I propose a resolution making 'Pepsi' the official drink of the Democratic Party)

[samnsara]

10. oh dear gawd NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[samnsara]

11. fuckity fuck fuck NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[msongs]

12. indies who want to use dems as a cash cow may not like this concept. nt

[ProfessorPlum]

20. this is a divisive post

the Democratic party gets a lot of benefit from associating with these independent senators, as well.

It's a mutually beneficial arrangement

[Sunlei]

13. is the headline wrong? only 1 person made resolution- Bob Mulholland- NOT entire DNC

I wish TheHill would go out of business and the DNC would write their own damn ONLINE breaking news-headlines.

[BainsBane]

15. DNC "to consider a resolution"

and in the first line of the post, "a member's resolution." There is nothing misleading about it. You only need read it, or even just the first sentence.

[George II]

16. The headline is correct, but vague. The DNC will consider the resolution proposed by one member.

[Sunlei]

22. Thanks. wish this ONE member wasn't in the DNC, last thing Ds need is more divisiveness &

Bernie nagging. Sanders himself said last month, "stay in the D party".

[KPN]

18. I'd be surprised if this even gets to a vote

by the DNC. Pretty divisive in itself.

We need to all chill about Bernie (King is just an attempt to appear impersonal) if we want to stand a chance to regain the House and Senate in 2018. We need to focus on policies, message, who are our best spokespersons to get our message out, etc., rather than labels.

This is just stupid.

[murielm99]

19. Not just no,

but hell no.

What important contributions? Divisiveness and disunity?

If this goes any further than a resolution by one person, we are stupid. We will not make the gains we need in 2018 with this continual push by forces that do nothing but criticize our party.

Let's elect some Democrats in 2018. Let those two go their own way.

[mcar]

23. K&R

[Evergreen Emerald]

27. fool me twice, shame on me.

Shame on you DNC

[Me.]

29. Precisely

Biting the hand that fed it

[Adrahil]

31. I only want them if they will commit to working to advance the party...

Sanders has a habit of spouting off at the worst possible times in public. King less so. I like King.