2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumQ: Why is Bernie backing a candidate who is opposed to the Iran nuclear deal?? ...
A: Butthurt ...
Except for maybe her primary opponent:
Much of Canovas campaign literature emphasizes his opposition to the nuclear agreement with Iran, a position shared by many in the districts large and active Jewish population. Wasserman Schultz backed the deal.
Shes Jewish; Im not. But Ive had a Jewish stepdad for 40 years, and I was a volunteer on a kibbutz. . . . And she voted for the Iran agreement, he said. Either she got duped by [Obama deputy national security adviser] Ben Rhodes or she was in on it.
In other words, against Wasserman-Schultz Bernie Sanders is backing a guy who attacks her from the right on one of the most consequential foreign policy issues of the day. I have no love whatsoever for Wasserman-Schultz but this almost makes me want to donate to her campaign. Fucking brilliant.
Of course this isn't really about Canova; it's about Sanders' grudge against Wasserman-Schultz. It isn't about 'principle' any more than his jihad against Barney Frank is; it's about payback. But what's also at work here is his lack of interest in foreign policy--something he might want to get over if he's going to keep endorsing people for Federal office.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2016/05/with-progressives-like-these.html
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)such as Dan Malloy, Barney Frank, and DWS, more than it is about issues at this point.
that's how populist campaigns based on anger and grievance usually wind up
Demsrule86
(68,456 posts)would do with presidential power?
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... and yes, he certainly is not presidential material.
Demsrule86
(68,456 posts)He is vindictive and just plain angry and mean...holds grudges for years too...as Barney could tell you.
Tortmaster
(382 posts)... for Senator Sanders to have been pantsed by The New York Daily News over his embarrassing lack of knowledge about Dodd-Frank.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Tortmaster
(382 posts)... that disqualifying embarrassment of an interview, I like to link to it:
http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306
It's that bad. We really dodged a bullet here.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)The Daily News on Monday published an interview with him that led some commentators to say he didnt know how to break up the countrys biggest banks. Downsizing the largest financial institutions is one of Mr. Sanderss signature policies, so it would indeed raise questions about his candidacy if he had little idea of how to do it.
In the interview, with The Daily Newss editorial board, Mr. Sanders does appear to get tangled up in some details and lacks clarity. Breaking up the banks would involve arcane and complex regulatory moves that can trip up any banking policy wonk, let alone a presidential candidate. But, taken as a whole, Mr. Sanderss answers seem to make sense. Crucially, his answers mostly track with a reasonably straightforward breakup plan that he introduced to Congress last year.
...
Mr. Sanders is mostly cogent here. This is more or less how a breakup would work under his legislation. Doing what he outlines here would be far easier if Congress passed his breakup bill, or something like it. Mr. Sanders is on shaky ground if he thinks it would be easy to slash the size of the banks with Dodd-Frank alone. But, taking the interview as a whole, as well as his past positions, that does not appear to be the path he favors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?_r=0
Or the Huffington Post:
Daily News: Okay. Well, lets assume that youre correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?
Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.
Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?
Sanders: Well, I dont know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.
Daily News: How? How does a president turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the treasury turn to any of those banks and say, Now you must do X, Y and Z?
Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.
Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?
This is simply a factual dispute between the Daily News and Sanders, not a matter of opinion. The Daily News was wrong.
...
This wasnt an interview about policy details. It was about who the media has decided is presidential and who isnt, who is serious and who isnt. The Daily News and much of the rest of the media dont think Sanders is qualified to be president, and thats the motivation for an interview meant to expose what the media have already decided is true.
(To be clear, I have my own view, that Sanders has shown himself to be a lousy manager of his staff on Capitol Hill over the years, which doesnt bode well for a presidency, and has not shown much interest in organizing, or ability to organize coalitions within the House or the Senate to advance his agenda, outside of his audit-the-Fed legislation, and some improvements to Obamacare. Thats troubling, but its different than deciding hes not serious and doesnt know what hes talking about.)
Candidates the media deem to be serious do not get these policy pop quizzes, because it is believed (accurately) that they can hire experienced advisers who can work out the details. But if they were pressed, theres no doubt a studied reporter could make them look silly.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-daily-news_us_5704779ce4b0a506064d8df5
ETA: Economist Dean Baker agrees as well: http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/reporters-who-haven-t-noticed-that-paul-ryan-has-called-for-eliminating-most-of-federal-government-go-nuts-over-bernie-sanders-lack-of-specifics
Thanks for playing, though. That meme just needs to be put to bed though.
Tortmaster
(382 posts)Rather than the after-spin.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Since not everybody necessarily understands Dodd-frank it helps to provide analysis.
Tortmaster
(382 posts)... Senator Sanders.
But, hey, it didn't matter for the Primary. He had lost that well before New York. What we're arguing about here is whether Democrats in the future will prize intelligence and depth or dance to the tune of empty-suited Pied Pipers.
Will we be lazy? Or, will we do our homework?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Did Tim Canova just imply Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't a "good Jew" ?
As a Jew, I don't know if I'm a good one or not, but I'm offended.
It reminds me of when Rudy Boschwitz , a Jewish Republican, was running against Paul Wellstone, a Jewish Democrat for a seat in the United States Senate and he implied Wellstone wasn't a "good Jew" because his wife was a Christian and he was a moderate on Israel.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... so she's either a stupid Jew or an evil Jew.
Pretty sick.
Why am I not surprised that Bernie can get behind this guy?
Tortmaster
(382 posts)... you are fucked in the head. But, hey, Payday loans! Amirite?
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)is on whether Tim Canova is pandering to a particular voting bloc instead of whether his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal is good policy?
Let's hear whether you Bernie bashers support or oppose the deal?
As for this Bernie supporter, Tim Canova is dead wrong on this issue. Not only is the Iran nuclear deal a good one, it is a step toward the day when this country no longer tries to tilt the scale in a regional conflict.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)BUT do you really think that no one who posts in GDP opposes (okay, that's an absolute, I mean, "that a number of people who post in GDP oppose" the Iran nuclear deal?
salinsky
(1,065 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)about me having to do too many +1's?
In any event, thank you.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)I have reservations over whether it will work. We have seen this movie before in North Korea. However and it is a huge however, the president put his prestige and the prestige of the nation on the line, and therefore it was incumbent upon us to support him.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Not saying as in 75%, but rather three support Clinton and one (supposedly) supports Sanders.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)any Democrat who opposed it.
do a site search for my user handle and Chuck Schumer if you don't believe me
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)I am proud of all of you.
Maybe Canova is just better than DWS on a lot of other issues?
I weould find it hard to believe in a progressive position that somehow opposes the Iran deal.
... but being dead wrong on "one of the most consequential foreign policy issues of the day" is pretty damning, and might a good reason to distance oneself ...
... at least, if you want to be considered presidential material.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)thesquanderer
(11,972 posts)...is that it's something of a non-issue, in that it already passed. So while it may not be admirable, the fact is, one can pander by speaking against it, without any real-world consequence. That is, if elected, he would not have the opportunity to vote against it anyway, there will be no opportunity for anyone to hold him to it. In effect, he can take any position he thinks will get him more votes, without worrying about acting on it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But setting that aside....Your criticism of Sanders for supporting him is inane.
Sure he and Sanders have disagreements. But they also have many agreements.
Your complaints seem to contradict the "purity" claims that are always being made. So Sanders is only supposed to support people who support him 100 percent on everything? Wouldn't that the "purity test" you accuse him of?
Nice little Catch 22 you have going on there.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)As a Jewish person I am really fucking offended that Tim Canova arrogates to himself the right to decide who are "good Jews" and who aren't, based on their positions on political issues.
merrily
(45,251 posts)seconds before saying "I'm a Methodist."
How about when her friend Rehm insists over Sanders denials that he has dual citizenship.
How about when campaign surrogates went on Sunday talk shows and talked about surveys showing that Americans won't vote for an agnostic for President?
No dog whistles about religion in any of that, right?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)If somebody asked me my religion it's a bit more complicated. My mom was Jewish. My father was Christian. Since Judaism is a matrilineal religion I am Jewish. I actually consider myself a Jewish-Christian.
Any way, if you want to defend Tim Canova calling DWS a "bad Jew" that's your prerogative.
merrily
(45,251 posts)In fact, I think she opened with that.
Any way, if you want to defend Tim Canova calling DWS a "bad Jew" that's your prerogative.
This is a dishonest and disgusting mischaracterization of my post.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)This thread is a discussion of Tim Canova making an in issue of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Judaism.
This is a dishonest and disgusting mischaracterization of my post.
Instead of joining all good people in holding his contemptible and odious actions out for censure and opprobrium you point to the alleged bad acts of others.
My remarks stand.
merrily
(45,251 posts)What I pointed out was YOUR double standards and you pretended I said something else entirely, a kind of tactic not entirely unusual. Doubling down on it doesn't make it any less dishonest or disgusting.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)If X has a cadaver is his freezer and the police arrive should X tell the police they should look in his neighbor's freezer because he might have a cadaver there too?
Just asking.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)who just happens to be Tim Canova in this case.
It's about the intra-party feud (conceding ad argumentum that Sanders is a member of the party).
The kind of score-settling people say the Clintons engage in.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)A candidate has to give reason to vote for them, not just against the other candidate. Canova is the longest of longshots anyways, but this hamfisted attempt to bring DWS' religion into the argument is going to flop.
merrily
(45,251 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of his sterling progressive credentials, and it's just an amazing coincidence that he happens to be running against Public Enemy #2 in Bernieland?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)when she endorses Sanders.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Oy vey!
merrily
(45,251 posts)than New Democrat Debbie. He was also an early supporter of Bernie; and has acted as a consultant for Bernie on some matters. Those are just off the top of my head, but are several reasons why Bernie might support Canova despite some differences--and DU has always preached not expecting a 100% match up, except, of course, when DU finds it inconvenient to single out an issue or two.
You, on the other hand, seem to be relying exclusively on your relatively newly (snort) found hatred of Bernie and your imaginary ability to read Bernie's mind. I get that objective reasons are no match for the emotional knee jerk or the supernatural, so I will not try any further to convince you.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)salinsky
(1,065 posts)... so it should be consequential.
And, Hillary supported the Iran deal.
She demands accountability and verification ... rightly so.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)IF she becomes president look for her to use it as an excuse for war rather than an a tool for peace
onenote
(42,581 posts)Doesn't sound like a paper thin position to me.
LexVegas
(6,030 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)as he has been so busy running for president. Things like the Iran nuclear deal aren't really part of his focus.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That said, I know nothing about that district or it's polling; if she can hold it and Canova can't, this is cutting off our nose to spite our face. But if he can hold it, I'm all for it.
Nanjeanne
(4,915 posts)things like fed policy - Canova was standing up for progressive issues. You can read his letter to the NYT editors - written way back in 1983 here: http://www.nytimes.com/1983/04/15/opinion/l-federal-reserve-in-need-of-change-at-the-top-102536.html and http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/16/opinion/l-inflation-hinges-not-on-m-1-alone-127015.html. He also wrote an article for the Washington City Paper on the collapse of Continental Illinois at the time the largest bank failure in American history and the birth of the phrase too big to fail. Canova argued that deregulation had destabilized American finance, and predicted a rash of upcoming bank failures that are today known as the Savings and Loan Crisis. Guess he had good judgement way back then too.
He has been teaching international trade law for many years and has been concerned and outspoken against the TPP. Again good judgement there.
He supported Occupy Wall Street back in 2011 when it certainly wasn't a mainstream position.
He is for expanding social security
He fought for getting ex-felons in NM the right to vote and worked with a Republican governor to make it happen.
I don't agree with his Iranian stance - but most of the district he is seeking to represent does, unfortunately.
Compared to Wasserman Schultz - I'll take the good stances with the bad . . . and stick with Canova.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Highlighting one issue in which he's not doesn't change that.
Canova is for campaign finance reform; DWS changed DNC rules to accept lobbyist donations.
Canova is for medical marijuana; DWS is opposed.
https://timcanova.com/issues
RandySF
(58,478 posts)CanadaexPat
(496 posts)for re-election?
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The obvious answer to your question is that Sanders isn't in complete agreement with either candidate so he supports the one whom he considers better (although imperfect).
That, of course, is the general approach that Clinton supporters are loudly urging on Sanders supporters if we have to face a Clinton versus Trump general election. To do anything else, we are told, would be to impose an unreasonable purity test.
Apparently a different standard applies when there's an opportunity to throw mud at Bernie.