Sanders nears debate test, once refused request for more than 6 debates

[wyldwolf]

In one debate, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders pointed a crooked finger at an audience member and yelled at him. “Do you not believe me?” he barked.

In a separate exchange, Sanders leapt out of the seat and, defying the debate rules, dressed down his opponent: “It’s people like you . . . ,” he began, before being cut off by the moderator amid boos from the audience.

These moments are classic Sanders, according to interviews with those who have shared a debate stage with him over a 25-year career in statewide campaigns. He can get defensive. Insults lodge under his skin. He turns bright red and can display a flaring temper.

As Sanders tries to capitalize on his large crowds and leading position in some early state polls, his next big test will be in the upcoming Democratic debates, where the candidate who rose to prominence via small town exchanges before a handful of people will be up against one of the Democratic Party’s most seasoned debaters.

Sanders has joined (the call for more Democratic debates), and his campaign website includes a petition calling on the DNC to add to the schedule.

“The best chance for this country is discussing the issues that matter,” according to Sanders’ website. “Republicans aren’t going to do it, so we need more Democratic debates.”

One person who finds that stance a little odd is William Meub, a personal injury lawyer in Rutland.

Meub was Sanders’ Republican opponent in his 2002 House of Representatives contest, and pressed hard for more than the half-dozen debates that were scheduled.

Feeling that his calls were ignored, he went to Sanders’ Burlington Senate office and interrupted a news conference that Sanders was having on the state’s dairy economy. The two went back and forth several times, with Sanders saying they would have a chance to debate because several encounters were on the books.

Meub replied: “You used to say you’d debate 10 or 15 times. Live by your words Congressman Sanders!”

The Sanders campaign didn’t reply to an e-mail asking about the episode.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/09/23/what-does-hillary-clinton-have-fear-from-bernie-sanders-debate-playbook/V4p6WjjFHpDXfvKU7YDYkN/story.html

[99th_Monkey]

1. Does this hit-piece have a LINK, or is this your personal handiwork? nt

[Fred Sanders]

3. It is a hit piece. Dragging up something from 14 years ago completely out of context to create a

non-sequitur for today.

Ludicrous, not to mention the opening paragraphs personalize the whole piece.

Garbage.

Time to concentrate more on circling the wagons in the allied camp.

Addendum: Since I, not long ago, had a comment hidden by saying "at times I would reject the saying - and I would shoot the messenger on sight", I will not say it again, if it were to be mistaken or conveyed as literal rather than rhetorical.

[frazzled]

12. Does that rule apply across the board?

For instance, I assume, then, that attending a civil rights march more than 50 years ago while in college, is a non-starter for discussing the candidate's racial appeal today.

Or if you DO think that's relevant today still, then I assume his other positions of the era, such as cervical cancer being caused by too few orgasms, is also relevant.

Or is the rule just that anything positive has no statute of limitations, but anything even slightly negative has no relevance unless it happened since April of this year.

Please clarify what the rules are.

[Fred Sanders]

13. You want me to propose rules for Internet comment boards? I am working on it...will let you know.

[frazzled]

17. Your own rules will be a good start

Just think about it. I don't need response.

[MADem]

22. It is NOT a hit piece--it's an analysis of Sanders' past styles in debates with links.

Seriously--everyone is WAAH WAAH WAAHING so much that they didn't read past the first paragraph. This does NOT sound like a "hit piece" to me:

A review of Sanders’ past debates provides some window into the risks that Clinton faces in these showdowns. What he lacks in polish he makes up for with authenticity and energy, and former opponents of Sanders warned that Clinton should not underestimate him.

“Nobody delivers a message better than Bernie Sanders, even though I don’t like the message,” said Richard Tarrant, the Republican who ran against him in 2006.

Here's a video of him debating the guy that said "nobody delivers a message bettter..." provided via link in the article:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7&v=KENjKtUkNuI


This thread illustrates how IMPOSSIBLE it is to discuss DIFFERENCES in style without descending into the whole foolish "You're being meeeeean to my favorite!!!!" territory.

It's a real DU failing, IMO.

[MADem]

10. The Boston Globe is the premier newspaper of New England.

Sanders has modified his debate style in the intervening years, but there's nothing wrong with a look at every candidate's history--or do we only get to beat the backgrounds of CERTAIN candidates to death?

[99th_Monkey]

14. I asked if there was a link to the hit-piece, and then I got one.

As with most (if not all) hit-pieces aimed at Sanders, it is issue-free, instead stooping to
negative characterizations of Bernie as "defensive", angry, and "inconsistent' re: debates.

This "inconsistent" one is especially hilarious, given Hilary's glaring inconsistency on the
TPP, Keystone Pipeline, and most recently private prisons.

[MADem]

15. I regard it as an historical, not a "hit," piece.

Like I said, it seems that the pasts of only SOME candidates are fair fodder, here.

If you're going to snark on Clinton, given the subject matter of this thread, you'd probably get a better reception if you spoke to how she used to be a pretty shitty debater, too, and, like Sanders, has improved with age, rather than try to compare an apple (debate style) with an orange (a policy position).

It is pretty obvious that No Comments That Might Be Perceived As Negative are permitted with regard to some candidates, and No Comments That Might Be Perceived As Positive will go unanswered with a detraction for others.

[99th_Monkey]

25. My point is simply this

that for the most part, OP's critical of Hillary are generally focused on stuff that actually
matters, like positions on issues voters actually care about: the economy, jobs, foreign
policy, racial & social justice, and so forth. And then responses to these OP's from Hillary
peeps call this an "attack" or being "negative", which seems a bit disingenuous IMHO.

On the other hand, OP's critical of Bernie -- like this one -- tend to be pretty much issue-
free, instead trying to paint him in some unfavorable light, as being divisive, angry, a too-old
White Guy from white Vermont, and so forth. These OPs feel much more like personal attacks
than OPs contrasting the candidates on the issues.

True, there are probably some exceptions to this, but it's just an observation I am making.
No more, no less.

[MADem]

27. So, you're saying with a debate looming, we should not talk about debate styles? Seriously?

The piece was NOT a hit piece, but straight out of the gate, that is how the Sanders supporters framed it. It was an evenhanded conversation and it was Full of FACT.

The article--which said some great things about Sanders--he's authentic, he has passion, his opponent said to not underestimate him, that Clinton faces RISKS debating him--was an example of GOOD REPORTING.

To listen to people here, reading a half paragraph and then doing the Jump and Screech routine, you'd never know it.

It's why it is impossible to have conversations on DU anymore. People a) Assume the worst, b) Don't care about facts, and c) Don't bother to read the material.


It's tiresome.

It's also bullshit to try to suggest that it is "wrong" or "unfair" to simply note that a guy who is now wanting MORE debates to gain advantage, was DUCKING debates when he was in the catbird seat, and his OPPONENT wanted to gain advantage.

Like I said, it seems like only ONE CANDIDATE's past can be discussed here at DU. And that's MY simple point.

[99th_Monkey]

33. It's fine to discuss debate styles, ok.

and indulge in breathless horse-race speculation, and to discuss the polls. It's all good.
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were being just a little defensive.

I'm simply stating my personal preference for sticking to the issues, more than seems to
be in vogue on M$M or DU in some cases.

BTW - I did think of at least one exception vis-a-vis Hillary people wanting to
compare and contrast on one issue: gun control. So there, you see... no worries.

Peace.

[MADem]

37. I am not "defensive," but I am getting just a teeny wee bit tired of the horse shit.

First, I read that the EEEEVIL Powers that BEEEEE have "changed the debate time!!" Because they wanted to screw BERNIE!

That wasn't true. At no time was the debate changed. Like ALWAYS, CNN is going to put on a warm up show a half hour ahead of the debate. Spin, spin, spin, though~!

Then I read that the Boston Globe has put out a "hit piece" on Bernie. Oooops--not true, either. It's a balanced article that makes him look pretty .... FORMIDABLE, in fact.

Next I read that Debbie Wasserman Schultz (code name--the EVIL "DWS&quot has DISINVITED a rep from the debate because the rep likes Bernie. ALSO not true. You know how I found out? I clicked on the LINK that the misstating OP provided, and there it was, right there--the person was NOT disinvited.

smh!

DU is becoming a place where there's nothing but bullshit being shopped--and no one bothers to correct their OPs, even when they've been shown to be in error. They just keep rolling along, collecting more outraged "YEAH! That's TERRIBLE!" responses from people who don't read the links, or the corrections in the thread.

This place is starting to look less smart as a consequence--it reminds me of a place with a clumsy platform and poor graphics that shall not be named when I see stuff like that.

I thought we were smarter. Why can't we discuss issues without all these cartoonish characterizations? It's just absurd. The pot-stirring dramatic, outraged threads that postulate a falsehood and aren't corrected--how many times will people put up with being gamed like that? How long before the Boy Who Cried Wolf approach to discussion on a message board fails to deliver the unnecessary poutragees to the fray?

[99th_Monkey]

42. A White House counselor to Bill Clinton also thinks DWS rigged the debate schedule

to "enable" Hillary, in his words, which he thinks will hurt the Democrats in the GE, and will likely back-fire against
Hillary as well.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/12/the_dnc_screwed_hillary_now_get_ready_for_a_bernie_sanders_earthquake/

I can't speak to the "changed the debate time!!" kerfuffle, as you didn't include a link to it, AND more importantly,
I don't care. I never had a problem with the time change.

Your commentary on how some may over-react, don't read links, or get some details wrong is interesting, in that
you seem to feel that it's only Sanders supporters who are guilty of such lapses. I think (or at least hope)
you know that really isn't any truer of Bernie supporters than it is Hillary supporters.

This IS a primary after all, which means we're going to disagree, and in our excitement and enthusiasm will
occasionally get carried away or not comport ourselves perfectly. IMHO you protesteth a bit too much .. so much
so that I am tempted to say you are "over-reacting", even "outraged" yourself, as you're accusing others of being.

I've tried to be respectful in this exchange with you, and do resolve to try to be fair, not overreact, or if I do, to
make it right.

[MADem]

46. That poor guy--tried like hell to be governor of CT; was crushed like a bug, wonder why?

Maybe he's not 'all that' in the political analysis game....?

When you get to playing the "seems to feel like" card, it's important to be accurate. HRC people don't post here much anymore--most of the articles I am seeing are from Sanders supporters. Those three I mentioned were the most recent three articles I had read at the time I made my observations. If you want to throw a few more "oppositional" logs on the fire that also demonstrate my thesis, please, be my guest.

It is a primary, and yes, we are going to disagree, but that doesn't mean we have to tolerate outright lies --that are STUPID, and easily proven to be complete nonsense, as the ones I mentioned were-- as part and parcel of the process. Like I said, this place is looking like That Place That Will Not Be Named, based on the intelligence level of some of the posts. Those three were bogus. CNN did not move the debate time (either to hurt Bernie or for other nefarious reasons), DWS did not "disinvite" a rep who is ALSO a DNC official, an aide told her to tone down her rhetoric; and the Globe did not write a "hit piece" article on him--they wrote an article that had lots of praise for his talents in it, and admiring assessments from his OPPONENT.

This is the truth, plain and simple. But the lies about those three threads have travelled halfway round the world already.

[99th_Monkey]

49. I think this is where we agree to disagree. Have a nice day. -nt-

[Action_Patrol]

57. Dead on. Perfect.

Exactly my thoughts.
Concise, to the point and with no hyperbole.

I'm a big fan of you.

[wyldwolf]

40. no, I added the link then two minutes later you asked for one.

[99th_Monkey]

43. Well, congratulations for beating me to it. The original did NOT have a link

and by the time I got around to posting, you'd already done it. woo-hoo! Well done.

Score one for wyldwolf.

[wyldwolf]

44. No, it didn't because I forgot to put it. But you obviously see something nefarious in that.

[99th_Monkey]

47. No , but I was admittedly confused by the lack of a link.

I honestly did not know if it was your "handiwork" as I put it, or if you forgot to add a link,
so I asked about it.

Why in the world are you trying to turn this molehill into some big fucking deal? geesh.

[Hortensis]

35. Yes, I noticed this was the Boston Globe also. As for who we get to

say truth about, every day this board looks like it's either attracted a bunch of conservative reactionaries or people so much like them that it's hard to tell the difference.

Conservatives are different from liberals in that they process information through their emotional center first, then send it on for cognitive analysis -- only some obviously don't. I'm still waiting for studies on the liberal fringe to be published where I can find them. i'm very curious!

As said, though, Bernie's history is what it is. People here should take a lesson from the far right -- they're constantly being shocked, outraged, and plunged in despair because they refuse to face the truth before it swings up and whacks them in the head. And then they still can't accept it.

[MADem]

38. The Globe article is FAVORABLE to him, too--but it requres that people READ IT to see that!

It presents him as no easy mark, a passionate debater who is appealing.

I agree with your comment about processing information through the emotional center--I am seeing a LOT of that. I don't know if the people doing this are conservatives, or what--I do know that they are lowering the level of discourse when they don't bother to read the doggone links.

I just saw an article posted here accusing Debbie Wasserman Schultz of "disinviting" a rep for the crime of liking Bernie.

I clicked on the link--the LINK said IT WAS NOT TRUE.

I just smh. It's unbelievable, the whole "rile 'em up over nothing" game that is being played here, over, and over and over again.

Why would anyone do that? Post easily disproved falsehoods? Makes no sense.

[Hortensis]

41. No sense to us. But that "rile them up" thing?

There is a lot at stake, and the more this forum drives away people coming for information and camaraderie, the more the right benefits. ??

[MannyGoldstein]

2. I'm incredibly pleased that Sanders is doing well enough

to warrant your posting this silliness. It was a House seat, not the Presidency, of course.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I am confident all our stellar candidates will acquit themselves admirably.

eom

[We Want Bernie]

16. Except for Clinton, of course.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I am confident all our stellar candidates will acquit themselves admirably.

I am confident all our stellar candidates will acquit themselves admirably.

-DemocratSinceBirth

Except for Clinton, of course.

-We Want Bernie

It is a tale. Told by an idiot...Signifying nothing.

-William Shakespeare.

[kenfrequed]

45. Stop it

You really aren't helping at this point.

[SidDithers]

59. ...

Sid

[left-of-center2012]

5. Sanders pointed a finger and yelled “Do you not believe me?"

OMG ! That does it !
I'm switching from Bernie to Lincoln Chafee

[whatchamacallit]

11. "A crooked finger"!!1!

[Sheepshank]

6. Well we can add changing his mind on number of debates, to Bernie's resume of changes

...or evolving on a subject.

I honestly don't care one way or the other how many debate we have, I'm just not into all this "he never changes on anything" malarky.

[stevenleser]

48. But that can't be! That's a death penalty offense according to some DUers.

[R B Garr]

51. Yes! His phony moral high ground starts eroding pretty fast when examined closer.

No debates for thee, but many debates for me. So phony.

[Ino]

7. Aww, you left this part out...

A review of Sanders’ past debates provides some window into the risks that Clinton faces in these showdowns. What he lacks in polish he makes up for with authenticity and energy, and former opponents of Sanders warned that Clinton should not underestimate him.

“Nobody delivers a message better than Bernie Sanders, even though I don’t like the message,” said Richard Tarrant, the Republican who ran against him in 2006.

Indeed, Sanders won both the 2002 and 2006 elections referred to in this article, by a wide margin.

[wyldwolf]

8. Aww. You have an amazing grasp for the obvious - or can count paragraphs. I left a lot of it out.

[bkkyosemite]

9. Lots of negative about Bernie

today. What did they decide to do. A campaign before the debate on dissing Bernie. An ad on CNN this morning showed Hillary saying if you want a President who listens to the people I'm her. Showing her proudly then they move over to showing the times for the debate. I think the fix is in. And Chucky saying be safe huh? Talking this morning on DU about Bernie's debate style and how nasty he is......what a bunch of BS and I don't mean those letters to describe Bernie Sanders. Feel the Bern.

[MADem]

26. You didn't read the article, either, I see.

This is his former opponent and staffer--Republicans, too-- talking about him, and this is NOT a negative characterization:

A review of Sanders’ past debates provides some window into the risks that Clinton faces in these showdowns. What he lacks in polish he makes up for with authenticity and energy, and former opponents of Sanders warned that Clinton should not underestimate him.

“Nobody delivers a message better than Bernie Sanders, even though I don’t like the message,” said Richard Tarrant, the Republican who ran against him in 2006. .... those who have clashed with Sanders expect him to hew to many of the same talking points that he’s been pushing since his earliest days in office: Blame the wealthy, note the disparities between the rich and the poor, deliver with passion.

“He is a fiery person,” said Tim Lennon, the campaign manager for Tarrant. “He did lose his cool to a certain extent. Part of the fieriness is part of the attraction.”

And pointing out that he's calling for more debates NOW, but there was a time when he was a front-runner and he ducked them, is not "negative."

That is REPORTING.

[Hortensis]

36. Bkkyosemity, people BUY ad time. It's not a fix. It's a purchase.

[restorefreedom]

18. the only test that will matter

are the four debates that are scheduled.

those are the ones people will be paying attention to.

all the candidates debate history will be moot once people see how they do NOW.

[artislife]

19. One, this is a retread and two read how Meub

"asked" for more debates....in a state election..


gee, your approval ratings are tanking.

[sabrina 1]

21. Citizens United funded talking point AGAIN! Lol! They sure try to get mileage out of the

Think Tank talking points don't they?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. This from a Republican "personal injury lawyer" aka Ambulance Chaser?

[MADem]

29. So, we shouldn't listen to him? He said that Sanders was a good debater--you're saying he's lying?

... indeed.

Helps to read the article.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Go ahead if you want to.

[MADem]

31. Uh...you were the one discrediting what the guy had to say--not me. nt

[msongs]

28. only Hillary's past can be discussed. the new messiah is above such historical examination nt

[merrily]

32. Totally untrue. DU has discussed Sanders' past to ludicrous degrees since he announced, starting

with a single 45 year old essay that he wrote to make a few bucks and a single endorsement he got from NRA when he first ran for Congress 25 years ago (because the NRA was furious with his Republican opponent) even though the NRA has rated Sanders D- to F throughout his entire career in Congress and (obviously) never endorsed him again.

Not that someone who pretended to be a Sanders supporter has a lot of cred when posting about Sanders.

[Armstead]

34. I hope there aren't any sharp objects near the stage that Scary Sanders might use

Man, he sounds like a Monster. A truly unhinged frightening figure you wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley!

I hope Clinton is surrounded by her Secret Service onstage for protection against this Horrible Ogre who might really lose it.

[ibegurpard]

55. and if he doesn't get her

There will a bunch of vicious Sanders supporters waiting to run her down in their Volvos.

[morningfog]

39. Lol.

[stevenleser]

50. Kick nt

[GeorgeGist]

52. Yes, because congressional races are just like the Presidency.

[artislife]

53. Ha ha ha ha

see the 4 brainiacs who rec'ed this regurgitated thread. How far can they sink?

[Vattel]

54. Lol, Meub burst into Sanders' meeting and demanded "about eight debates."

Sanders had a tight schedule in Congress at the time, but did schedule six debates, and so Meub got pretty close to what he asked for. Obviously, there is no inconsistency between Sanders' having thought in 2002 that six debates against a repub in a congressional race was enough and his thinking now that there are good reasons for more debates between democratic candidates in the race for the 2012 democratic presidential nomination. Why compare apples and oranges?

[stevenleser]

56. Kick nt

[jfern]

58. What an utter trash OP