"Inside Bernie Sanders's 1988 10-day 'honeymoon' in the Soviet Union"

[KitSileya]

By Michael Kranish
May 3 at 6:00 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-bernie-sanderss-1988-10-day-honeymoon-in-the-soviet-union/2019/05/02/db543e18-6a9c-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.34f556f59a43

Bernie Sanders was bare-chested, towel-draped, sitting at a table lined with vodka bottles, as he sang “This Land Is Your Land” to his hosts in the Soviet Union in the spring of 1988.

The just-married socialist mayor from Vermont was on what he called “a very strange honeymoon,” an official 10-day visit to the communist country, and he was enthralled with the hospitality and the lessons that could be brought home.

.....

As he stood on Soviet soil, Sanders, then 46 years old, criticized the cost of housing and health care in the United States, while lauding the lower prices — but not the quality — of that available in the Soviet Union. Then, at a banquet attended by about 100 people, Sanders blasted the way the United States had intervened in other countries, stunning one of those who had accompanied him.

“I got really upset and walked out,” said David F. Kelley, who had helped arrange the trip and was the only Republican in Sanders’s entourage. “When you are a critic of your country, you can say anything you want on home soil. At that point, the Cold War wasn’t over, the arms race wasn’t over, and I just wasn’t comfortable with it.”

It is quite peculiar for a small-town mayor to completely go against the foreign policy of the United States and let himself be used by countries like the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Nicaragua, that were most decidedly not allies of the US, to criticize his own country. Was it hubris or naiveté, I wonder? To think that the mayor of Burlington could, on his own, be instrumental in foreign policy and not end up playing into the hands of power players in foreign countries with much better understanding of the Cold War than he had? After all, it's not like the mayor of Burlington had access to foreign office reports, CIA briefings, and all the information necessary when American politicians visit foreign countries and meet with politicians there.

[NurseJackie]

1. Gah!

[thewhollytoast]

26. Can you explian your post? eom

[NurseJackie]

31. What exactly is unclear? It's just the word "Gah!" and the "wow" emoji.

an you explian your post? eom

What exactly is unclear? It's just the word "Gah!" and the "wow" emoji. Where did I lose you?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gah

interjection
(used as an expression of disappointment, frustration, dismay, or the like):
Gah! I need to cancel our plans this weekend—too much work.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/wow?s=t

interjection
an exclamation of surprise...

I hope that helps.

[thewhollytoast]

55. You are a helper.

Here's a hiaku just for u.

Spring's Out-patient
Is a madman
On a quest for more dishes to break

Toast

[NurseJackie]

110. Insinuating that I'm an "out-patient" and "mad"? That's not very nice.

Here's a hiaku just for u.

Spring's Out-patient
Is a madman
On a quest for more dishes to break

Toast

Insinuating that I'm an "out-patient" and "mad"? That's not very nice.

[ehrnst]

122. Yes, interesting response isn't it? (nt)

[lapucelle]

144. Oh look, the word "you" spelled with the single letter "u"

and a haiku!

How witty.

[lapucelle]

146. Oh look "Outpatient"with a capital "o".

And the Outpatient (capital o) is on a quest!
And the quest is to break dishes!

The profundity is awe-inspiring. How much better would the world be if more people outside of middle school students wrote haikus with nonsensical metaphors and random Capitalization.

Here's another one for you, Jackie.

Not me, us, profound Italics.

[ehrnst]

121. That's an interesting choice of candidate.

Can you explian your choice?

[Cha]

129. All you have are insults.. Can you explain that?!

[lapucelle]

145. Have a donut, dear.

You've earned it!

[MrsCoffee]

156. Can you explain your post? eom

[lapucelle]

158. ...

[lapucelle]

157. The "wholly toast"...oh hahaha

how clever!!!

[lillypaddle]

63. Don't let it go to your head

but I think you are brilliant.

[NurseJackie]

100. Thanks!

I'll try to remain humble.

[Hortensis]

41. Oh, the ungrateful rats! NYT just threw Bernie under the bus.

Guess management doesn't think he'll be as useful this time.

While we're on the subject, although being owned by a giant business conglomerate is enough reason for the NYT's years-long patterns of anti- Democratic Party coverage, trips to and connections with Russia of all significant owners/employees of The New York Times Company are definitely worth wondering about.

We know that visitors of any position at all are targeted by opportunistic Russian counterintelligence and that attempts to turn them into assets back in the states, witting, unwitting, willing or unwilling, are SOP.

Gah! is right. I've started thinking Russian-implanted corruption and betrayal in the U.S. is probably far more longstanding and pervasive than we're beginning to realize.

[Nuggets]

81. Has Bernie ever explained

the 10 million he got in small increments from one source?


Paperwork submitted on behalf of Bernie Sanders’ political action committee shows over $10 million in unnamed contributions pouring in from the nation’s capital.

The mystery money appears on a Schedule A-P filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by the Bernie 2016 presidential campaign committee with a receipt date of 30 June 2015. The report shows $10,465,912.39 in “Unitemized” receipts for the Primary election. (Transaction ID VPF7BEDRRH8E, page 9845.)

Under federal campaign finance law, disclosure is required on contributions over $200. Thus, the $35 donations do not appear in violation. However, given the relatively small population of D.C. and the lack of support for Sanders among legislators, the 300K individual contributions do appear highly questionable.
The People’s View: Not just Trump:How Bernie Sanders Campaign Also Had Deeply Imbedded Russian Connections Mar 23 2016

Or the illegal donations from foreign addresses not properly accounted for to confirm their US citizenship?

Violations cited by the FEC include the following:

Incorrect Totals on Detailed Summary Page.
$23,421034.08 in unitemized receipts on Line 17(a)(ii) of the Detailed Summary Page.
Multiple contributions in excess of the maximum donation amount per election year.
Prohibited contributions from foreign nationals.
Potential excessive contributions from Southwestern Adventist University and MassMutual.
Insufficient descriptions of itemized disbursements.
Missing information for a disbursement to a People’s Bank credit card.
Petty cash disbursements in excess of the maximum $100.
Missing information related to reimbursements.
Missing required information for travel reimbursements in excess of $500.

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/619/201602250300038619/201602250300038619.pdf

[Hortensis]

96. Don't know anything related to numbers. :) As the NYT

and other MSM leaf through more of the material they buried for the 2016 election, maybe some light will be shed on campaign finance.

I do remember reading in an old article about compliance problems that Sanders' most recent FEC filing ran to hundreds of thousands of pages. It's a wonder they found anything because, with Republicans in power, if they had enough funding to upgrade their systems and staff to do an adequate job, especially related to spotting foreign donations and otherwise keeping elections honest, that'd be surprising.

[KitSileya]

102. Senator Sanders asked for extensions several times

He asked for several consecutive 45-day extensions on his FEC filings, until the last one went beyond the convention. Since he was no longer a candidate after the convention, he no longer had to file. So much for transparency, I guess.

[Nuggets]

105. It'd be interesting to follow that money

especially if they traced it back to the NRA whose corporate head quarters is close by in Fairfax VA. a suburb of DC.

[Cha]

133. Hi..

That article is from the WaPo.. did the NYT throw aspersions on BS, too?

[NYMinute]

2. Criticizing America on Russian soil .. oh my

[George II]

9. Not just Russian soil, but SOVIET soil!

[murielm99]

33. Didn't the Dixie Chicks

get boycotted and practically killed for criticizing America in an allied, but foreign country?

How is this different?

[groundloop]

43. No, they criticized Bush so the Country Music folks blacklisted them

HOWEVER, while I'm not supporting Bernie in the primary, I think this is a bunch of hogwash. Why the hell shouldn't he be able to speak his mind about what the US needs to improve upon? Plus, this was YEARS ago - who among us hasn't done something in our distant past that we'd never think of doing today?

[Anon-C]

62. I respectfully disagree, groundloop. I do not begrudge Bernie as a natural leftist/socialist at...

...heart; and I recognize the spirit of amity in which such a trip could be made. It was the era of Glasnost and Perestroika in the Soviet Union, of course.

And were it not for the outstanding geopolitical realities with regards to Russia at present, I would agree it is no big deal. But the USSR was our adversary then and what they have become is our adversary now. Sadly, when I think of Bernie Sanders and Putin, I think of Jill Stein for some reason.

[Demsrule86]

159. I disagree...we were essentially at war with Russia...this is not good and the right will have a

field day.

[murielm99]

161. Thanks.

I needed to have my memory refreshed about the Dixie Chicks. It has been years since I saw the documentary. I remember now.

[KitSileya]

46. I imagine this will fly well with the white working class

who are the ones who went ballistic when their hero, GWB, was criticized by the Dixie Chicks. Isn't that the group of Trump deplorables Senator Sanders and his supporters claim he is the only one able to appeal to?

[NYMinute]

83. They only support him to hurt Democrats

by sowing division.

There is also the bait that if he wins the nomination by any chance, he will lose 45 states.

[onit2day]

66. That's what the republican claims. GAH. Another take down piece. Taking down

progressives one at a time. Next will be Warren. Until we are just back to being beholden to the corporate oligarchs again. It has become so apparent because there is a Bernie take down piece daily. He is the one progressive they are most fearful of and it's sad to watch the ignorant dogpile on Bernie knowing it really is an attempt to takedown all progressives. Look at the piece again. It's based on hearsay. It depicts with demeaning terms like bare chested surrounded by vodka bottles. It is trivial and says nothing of importance to today's campaign except to try to make Bernie look bad. So why write something so meaningless except to be demeaning. Which begs the question, why post it again here unless you are just being hateful, seeking any reason to make Bernie look bad. It doesn't. It's just another republican hearsay hit piece designed to rally the anti-Bernie-progressive crowd attacking democrats they don't like. What if he becomes our candidate? Will you vote for him or will you still be posting republican quoted hit pieces?

[NYMinute]

69. It is called vetting and scrutiny

As Columbo would say, "Just the facts, Ma'am"

[still_one]

80. Hmmm, I thought that was Friday from Dragnet. Colombo has one more question

[NYMinute]

82. You are right. I stand corrected.

I get my reruns mixed up.

[still_one]

84. me too

[oldsoftie]

98. If its not this, its going to be his wife's handling of the Burlington College debacle.

But this is politics and all who enter netter be ready.
Thats what Trump still doesnt understand; what you did 5,10, 40 yrs ago WILL be brought up

[Cha]

140. Sorry, it's the reallity of BS'

past.. everyone is getting vetted.. have you noticed?

No exceptions.

[Hekate]

130. Somebody really doesn't know geopolitical history past and present, do they?

SMH

[NYMinute]

131. I think it was the ideological congruence

and not ignorance of geopolitics.

[RandySF]

3. I grew up on a street full of Central and East European immigrants

who fled their home countries because of Soviet "intervention".

[Me.]

4. EeK

and now here's all that oppo finally coming out

[KitSileya]

6. It's kind of interesting - the article is quite neutral

It doesn't condemn or rail against Senator Sanders. It simply presents the facts, and includes his quotes from back then. Senator Sanders declined to be interviewed for the article, as he usually does when he is not allowed to completely control the questions himself.

[Me.]

10. Not Quite Neutral

There are still a lot of people around who feel like this

"I got really upset and walked out,” said David F. Kelley, who had helped arrange the trip and was the only Republican in Sanders’s entourage. “When you are a critic of your country, you can say anything you want on home soil. At that point, the Cold War wasn’t over, the arms race wasn’t over, and I just wasn’t comfortable with it.”

He should've faced it head on and done the interview

[KitSileya]

15. Yeah, I meant from the journalist.

He does explain how what Senator Sanders' action might have been viewed at the time, but he also gives Senator Sanders' rationale for his actions.

[peggysue2]

11. Yes, Me

The Senator from Vermont may reevaluate spearheading his attacks on others as this stuff comes dribbling out about his own 'baggage.' Hillary Clinton used kid gloves on Senator Sanders. This round we may see steel knuckles.

The moral of the story: Be careful what you wish for.


A Go for Joe!

[KitSileya]

8. I don't know. I think that Florida might be a problem for him, though

since he talks quite warmly about Cuba - quite a huge number of Cuban-Americans haven't forgotten having to flee Cuba when Castro came to power, and might not appreciate Senator Sanders admiration of the revolution there.

[MaryMagdaline]

123. Florida will definitely be a problem. This state is a refuge for people fleeing communist regimes

[George II]

13. Vladimir Putin was a KGB officer in 1988.

[Hortensis]

85. :) The visiting mayor of Burlington VT would warrant a KGB file,

like anyone else of any standing (we always wondered if my schoolteacher aunt had one), but Putin was busy in East Germany fomenting trouble, overseeing stealing technology, subverting local officials and police forces, and of course compromising and recruiting Westerners. And probably experimenting with new favorite poisons. So it's unlikely Putin was partying undercover in his underwear with Bernie and his group.

Sanders would definitely been of interest to Russian counterintelligence when he was elected to congress, of course, and whoa, extra big fish! when he became a U.S. senator, but Putin resigned to follow his star outside the KGB as Sanders was rising.

[LongtimeAZDem]

18. Your comment isn't anywhere near as funny as you think it is; it's actually pretty sad

[murielm99]

36. It was a very big deal for the West

when the Soviet Union fell. Were you a mere babe in arms when the Berlin Wall came down? That is still no excuse. I made sure my children understood the significance.

The Russians 45 is cosying up to right now had their political beginnings in Soviet Russia. They are no better now than they were in those days. You need to acquire a sense of history.

[susanr516]

42. One of my earliest memories was the Cuban Missile Crisis

I just remember my parents watching TV news and being very frightened. In the early 60s, we brought home papers for our parents to sign about what the school should do with us in case of a nuclear attack, and "duck and cover" drills. I was living in north Texas at the time, so the drills were also good for tornado warnings. So, yes, some of us do remember "the Soviet Union being a thing" as children.

That being said, I think Bernie was more naive than anything else on that trip.

[greatauntoftriplets]

68. I remember Kruschev saying he was going to bury us.

He was the boogeyman of my childhood. I even asked my parents how he intended to bury all of us. Additionally, I remember him banging his shoe on the desk at the UN, seeming almost like a barbarian.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the nuns at school constantly railed on us to be in a state of grace because we were all going to nuked momentarily. Then I'd come home to where my mother wanted (and tried until my father stopped her) from drinking all the booze in the house so it wouldn't go to waste.

Scary times indeed and I'll never forget it.

[TwilightZone]

44. Your ignorance of the subject means that it wasn't important?

That's a curious take.

[BannonsLiver]

50. I feel the same way about Anita Hill

But youth is not an excuse for not knowing history. It’s lazy intellectually.

[dalton99a]

7. Same guy who voted against Russia sanctions

[KitSileya]

12. That is a good point.

Of course, Senator Sanders claims he was too busy spending one hour at a whole-day meeting about the sexual harassment in his previous campaign to vote for the last sanctions the US tried to levy against Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. I am a bit surprised, though, since Senator Sanders is very clear on his views on billionaires - does he think that only American billionaires have an impact on the American economy in this globalized world we live in? If that is so, it certainly lends credence to the view that Senator Sanders is naive rather than hubristic in his foreign policy.

[George II]

14. Several times, and was the only Senator to skip the vote to sanction a Russian oligarch in January.

[R B Garr]

25. +1, isn't it interesting that his votes favored Russia...

Yet he accuses others of that which he does himself, not about Russia, but his favorite boogeymen, Wall Street corporations, etc.

In the meantime, Russia has actual oligarchs who mean to harm people. They are the reason we have Trump.

[George II]

88. The Senate had a vote to sanction a Russian oligarch back in January. 99 Senators voted, 1 didn't.

[R B Garr]

155. That is very telling. Protecting Russian oligarchs sounds

Trumpish.

[charlyvi]

56. He voted against the Magnitsky Act as well.

[Scurrilous]

86. ...

[MineralMan]

16. Well, Maybe Bernie Was Confused and Naive...

After all, he was in the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, after all. Then again, it was 1988, and things were about to start changing. Still, perhaps he was naive about such things at the time, due to his, you know, youth and inexperience...

[Jose Garcia]

45. He was 47 years old in 1988

[MineralMan]

48. I'm being facetious, of course.

[sprinkleeninow]

151. "Confused and naive."

Uh..😒

[redstatebluegirl]

17. Maybe some people will begin to see what the opposition research against Bernie looks like.

This is the stuff the gop was putting together and salivating at the thought of running against Bernie in 2016, now again in 2020. This time though there are a lot more candidates running so there is even more oppo research than the GOP. I kept hoping Hillary would have used what they had, but she would not assault another Democrat the way he will.

[thesquanderer]

30. Bernie is not so hard on his Dem opponents. He went easy on Hillary.

Hillary was tougher on Obama in 2008 than Bernie was on Hillary in 2016.

[redstatebluegirl]

37. I will NEVER forgive him for what his supporters did at the convention.

They were booing civil rights heroes, they were disrupting proceedings. Booing anyone they didn't think gave Bernie the proper support. All the while Bernie sat with a smug look on his face. If you dislike him or go after him, it will burn you in the end. You are not "progressive enough" your are DINO, you are a corporate lover. He will turn on you, his supporters will turn on you with a vengeance.

He did nothing to try and shut them up at the convention. Yes he issued a statement, carefully worded by the way, but he should have appeared on the floor of the convention brought them into a room and told them that what they were doing was not what he wanted them to do. He did none of that. He knew he was leaving the party that week, and would reappear in 2019 to run again in 2020 which he did.

BTW Bernie is going hard after Biden right now, he knows Biden is the front runner, Beto needs to watch his back too he showed up in front in a CNN poll today.

[Gothmog]

134. I was there and saw this conduct close up

[KitSileya]

38. Wow, we must live in alternate realities

Who called whom unqualified, insinuated that giving speeches for pay meant that you were automatically corrupted by it, and had surrogates call the other whore and supporters who threw dollar bills at women supporting their opponent?

Secretary Clinton stepped out of line in 2008, but she learned from her mistakes. Her opponent in 2016, not so much.

[thesquanderer]

67. Examples of where he went easy on her...

...he declared her emails a non-issue. (Trump, of course, successfully bludgeoned her with it.) It was the right thing for Bernie to do, but also shows he was not willing to do anything to win.

...when in a debate, he was asked for an example of where big money influenced Hillary's policies, he declined to bring up the Bill Moyers video going around at the time, where Elizabeth Warren took Hillary to task for changing her position on the bankruptcy bill once she became NY Senator, i.e. to favor Wall Street interests. I know, Hillary has an explanation... but it would have been an effectve attack, and he didn't use it.

Meanwhile, ahead of Michigan, in debate and radio/TV ads, Hillary misrepresented Bernie's position on the auto bailout. And that was not the only miseprsenation of his positions. She was no angel, here.

[lunamagica]

104. You are joking, right? How was Obama disrespected in the convantion like Hillary was?

[thesquanderer]

111. Maybe you've forgotten how brutal the 2008 campaign was, including racist overtones.

As for the 2016 convention "incident," (A) it was not something Sanders did or was under his control, and (B) it had zero impact on the outcome/nomination, which had already been decided at that point.

[lunamagica]

119. perhaps it didn't affect the nomination, but you can't say it had zero impact

on the GE

[Cha]

138. BULLFEATHERS! you're NOT re-writing

history here. We won't let you.

[thesquanderer]

147. Who is this "we"? Anyway, the 2008 campaign is well documented. It was not a love fest. (n/t)

[Cha]

148. "We" are those who lived through it.

[thesquanderer]

149. Well, then, "we" includes me. (nt)

[Cha]

150. Yeah.. so you say. We know what happened.

[thesquanderer]

153. yes we do! (nt)

[Cha]

154. uh huh

[aikoaiko]

19. Here are some funny videos out there.

They will confirm what people like and don't like about Bernie

[progressoid]

20. I remember when the Bush tried this against Bill Clinton when he went to the USSR as a student.

[Nanjeanne]

21. Oh for heaven's sake. His "Honeymoon" was part of a sister-city visit to Yaroslavl when he was

Mayor of Burlington. Toward the end of his mayoral tenure, Burlington launched a sister-city program with Yaroslavl, located 160 miles northeast of Moscow.

The program, which is still operating today, has facilitated exchanges between the two cities involving "mayors, business people, firefighters, jazz musicians, youth orchestras, mural painters, high school students, medical students, nurses, librarians and the (Yaroslavl) ice-hockey team," according to its website.

"Burlington had a foreign policy," he wrote in his 1997 book Outsider in the House, "because, as progressives, we understood that we all live in one world."

The bond between Burlington and Yaroslavl solidified when Sanders and his wife, as members of a 12-person delegation from Burlington, paid their Soviet counterparts a visit in 1988. Sanders was married May 28, 1988. The delegation left Burlington the next day. Sanders said the dates for the trip had already been set and as Bernie said, "set their wedding date to coincide with that trip because they didn't want to take more time off."

The "honeymoon" was dotted with meetings, interviews and diplomatic functions. A June 2015 profile in The Guardian described the former mayor’s meeting with Yaroslavl city officials:

"After receiving a rundown of central planning, Soviet-style, from Yaroslavl’s mayor, Alexander Riabkov, Sanders notes how the quality of both housing and health care in America appeared to be ‘significantly better’ than in the communist state. ‘However,’ he added, ‘the cost of both services is much, much, higher in the United States.’ "

The Vermont weekly newspaper Seven Days reported in 2009 that the sister-city relationship "helped local residents who sought to ease tensions between the United States and Soviet Union by initiating citizen-to-citizen exchanges with a Russian city."

...this newest rash of posting about this that is going viral is primarily from right-wing websites (if you do a google search) and it's shameful that it is even being posted here on DU.

[NYMinute]

23. Still no excuse for bashing America

He could have touted the virtues of America instead .. like .. you know … liberty, entrepreneurship, freedom to own and build assets, freedom to transfer assets to one's heirs, freedom of the press, free elections, independent justice system, division of powers etc. etc.

[shanny]

47. lol

Rose-colored glasses are not really conducive to progress. It is easy to bash the Soviet Union and they richly deserved it but we should be willing to look clear-eyed at our own system too.

Cost of housing and medical care were two subjects Bernie singled out at the time: have those things improved, do you think?

And dear me, a Republican got upset and walked out. Get the smelling salts and the fainting couch. Republicans have been hypocritical assholes all my life; it is not a recent development.

[NYMinute]

61. Cost of housing has several factors

Supply, demand, inflation and newer technologies. None of those can be controlled by the government without draconian laws.

The houses in San Francisco area cost a lot more - they are bigger, the land is more expensive and the seismic standards on construction are draconian. Lately, people want newer technologies in the house - internet wiring, modern insulation, solar panels etc. The government cannot magically make housing cheap. In Russia, housing is cheaper because even large families live in 600 sq. ft. apartments. Very few people have single family houses.

Yes, health care in Russia is cheaper but so is life-expectancy because modern medicine is not available to average people.

I have been to Russia several times and visited their hospitals in dilapidated conditions with a scarcity of basic supplies. I prayed for not getting sick there all the way until my return flight.

[KitSileya]

95. A close family friend who worked in a hospital in Norway

(he's retired now) started organizing with a hospital in a major Russian city to give them aid in form of equipment that was replaced in his hospital but was still usable. This was in the early '90s, and they soon focused on one ward specifically, the pediatric HIV/Aids ward, as it quickly turned from hospital ward to de facto orphanage. Parents would abandon their kids there when they got the diagnosis as HIV/Aids was so stigmatized in Russian society - they'd be run out of their homes if they brought a kid with HIV to the apartment block. They still drive huge trucks of equipment across Scandinavia and ferry across the Baltic sea every year to help them out.

[shanny]

107. I wasn't defending Russia, or more accurately the Soviet Union. um, "duh"

I was saying, as Bernie was saying, that there are some things we do not do well. Looking after our people is one of those things. For example, the cost of housing would be much less of an issue if wages had not been stagnant for 40 years, while the cost of everything went up. Getting the profit motive out of health care would make it more affordable.

But we, and particularly our government, are far more likely to care about the size of our economy, and the health of our corporations, as if there was some sort of direct correlation with the quality of Americans' lives. As if company profits will somehow trickle down to the common people's level. As.If.

[NYMinute]

117. You can't defend Bernie without defending Russia in this thread

Spinning it won't hide that ugly truth.

[Nanjeanne]

76. And I don't believe it was bashing just because some Republican said he walked out. According to

other reports:

The "honeymoon" was dotted with meetings, interviews and diplomatic functions. A June 2015 profile in The Guardian described the former mayor’s meeting with Yaroslavl city officials:

"After receiving a rundown of central planning, Soviet-style, from Yaroslavl’s mayor, Alexander Riabkov, Sanders notes how the quality of both housing and health care in America appeared to be ‘significantly better’ than in the communist state. ‘However,’ he added, ‘the cost of both services is much, much, higher in the United States.’ "

That's not what I would call "bashing". But words like "bashing" seem to be a dime a dozen when reported in right-wing media outlets all over the internet.

[KitSileya]

32. Yes, the article quotes Senator Sanders' rationale for the visits.

What Senator Sanders seems unaware of, or uninterested in, is how his visits to the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Nicaragua were used by the people in power there. In Nicaragua it was a huge coup to have an American politician on stage when the crowd chanted "The Yankee must die", We rail against Trump for legitimizing Kim Jong-Un by meeting with him. Would President Sanders make the same mistake? He seems very reluctant to uphold sanctions against Russia, when most experts say that sanctions work. Would President Sanders disregard the expert advice on foreign policy like he did in the '80s?

[onit2day]

97. This is a republican's opinion and republican hearsay hit piece. You're doing

those Russian trolls work for them. We should be smarter but some let their personal bias cloud their vision. Comparing Sanders to Trump? How is Bernie "reluctant to uphold sanctions against Russia" and isn't that just your unjustifiable opinion? Your post should be truthful and just say "I don't like Bernie Sanders and will do everything I can think of to make him look bad". That is more honest and to the point. I like all our candidates and more unites us than divides us. I believe any one of them can defeat Trump but also believe opinionated personal attacks only serve to divide us.

[KitSileya]

108. Well, saying reluctant is a bit mild, I guess.

He down-right refuses to uphold sanctions on Russia. He's voted against them every time there's been a vote in which he participated, and had a very weak excuse for not voting at all the last time. (He has to schedule his appearance at an all-day meeting at the very same time there's a very important vote on sanctions - come on. Using the "I was busy" excuse is wearing a bit too thin, all things considered.)

As for your accusation that I am doing Russian trolls work for them - stop with the personal attacks. Senator Sanders is being vetted. Just like Vice President Biden's actions in the 80s and 90s are being brought up by the Sanders campaign, Senator Sanders must accept that his actions and writings and things he's said will be brought up. We're not journalists he can smear by falsely claiming that any questioning of him is "political gossip" (and how that smacks of "fake news" is down-right chilling) - and he while he can refuse to speak to any journalist who will not let him decide what questions are asked, we can decide that such behavior is not acceptable to us and question his words, actions, and writings anyway. That is what the primary process is all about. We find out more about our candidates and decide who we think will make the best President based on the information we get in the process. That Senator Sanders escaped such scrutiny last time doesn't mean that he will not be scrutinized this time. He's not guaranteed special treatment, no more than any of the other candidates are. That is not Russian trolling, that is the primary of the Democratic Party. If he didn't want to be looked into, perhaps he shouldn't have run.

[democrank]

39. Thank you for the clarification.

The Sister-City program (here in Vermont and elsewhere) has done so much good.

Now the anti-Bernie/anti-Bernie supporters folks will have to find other ways to prove he’s a Communist, or UN-American, or a racist, or a fraud or a Democratic Party user, or too senile, or too white, or too progressive, or too angry. Oh, right....or too Socialist, even though he has explained the difference between a Socialist (which he isn’t) and a Democratic Socialist....which he is.

[BannonsLiver]

53. What kind of good has it done?

[Liberalhammer]

22. Doing Trump and Russia's work for them this cycle.

This post is doing Trumps work for him. Disgusting.

[NurseJackie]

34. No it's not. Ignoring what the GOP *will* most definitely do helps nobody.

This post is doing Trumps work for him. Disgusting.

No it's not. Ignoring what the GOP *will* most definitely do helps nobody. This is the type of vetting that needs to be done before the convention. It's necessary. It's essential.

Doing Trump and Russia's work for them this cycle.

Nobody is doing that.

[Liberalhammer]

124. This is not about policy or principles.

If it were true I wouldn't have made this comment. This is about spreading GOP and and soon DOJ propaganda.

This is not good, the post is doing the work for them.

[NurseJackie]

136. No it's not. These are things that must be discussed out in the open.

This is not good, the post is doing the work for them.

No it's not. These are things that must be discussed out in the open.

[David__77]

72. Some people think criticizing the Reagan-Bush foreign policy was wrong.

While I don't agree, I don't think it's, in itself, unprincipled.

[AlexSFCA]

73. it's the opposite

trump dreams of running against BS, he’d win in Reaganesque landslide. We are trying to neuter BS before he can destroy our country by electing trump. It is our duty as DU members to see right through a fake democrat. We have a much better ‘progressive’ real democrat running this time - Warren.

[Thekaspervote]

152. Agree!

[McKim]

93. Yes, the More We Fight....

Yes, the more we fight among ourselves the less time we have to reach voters with a positive message about our sterling candidates. Don’t play in the mud with the piggies!!!! I may have to leave DU if this continues.

[NurseJackie]

114. Seriously?

I may have to leave DU if this continues.

[Liberalhammer]

24. Because what ever Bernie did

In 1988 is far worse than Trump. You people keep on taking the bait.

[ehrnst]

27. Strawman much? (nt)

[NurseJackie]

115. Yes. Much!

[George II]

49. Sanders isn't running against trump.

[ehrnst]

116. Never did in this universe.(nt)

[yaesu]

28. The republican snowflake cut his feel feels hurt

[Peacetrain]

29. RUH ROH

this will not go down well

[pdsimdars]

35. People must really fear Bernie because they can't stop smearing him.

[murielm99]

40. We fear his nomination.

He could never beat 45, and that would be the end of our democracy.

[MineralMan]

54. No need. He will not be the nominee.

He lost last time. He will lose even more dramatically this time. There are too many fine candidates in this primary race. Bernie Sanders will probably not come very close at all.

His appeal is limited, and many would-be supporters are supporting other candidates this time. They've moved on, but Bernie hasn't. He's still selling the same thing he was last time. Others have similar ideas and are more appealing in other ways.

[progressoid]

91. If that's your concern, you should be backing Beto. He's the current frontrunner against Trump

via the latest poll.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/05/01/rel6d.-.trump.and.2020.pdf

[murielm99]

101. I like Beto.

My preference is not set in stone.

[ehrnst]

57. I think that you may not be familiar with Vetting, and how

other POTUS candidates are subject to it, and don't react as though they believe they are exempt.

Some feel that even fact checking by the free press is unreasonable, with doesn't bode well for one's longevity in a campaign.

There will be vetting this time. Sanders supporters may want to get used to that now, because it's going to be a long primary.

[pdsimdars]

60. Funny how you can "vet" some candidates and not others. . . .

[ehrnst]

65. All the candidates are being vetted. Some feel like they are exempt.

Like those who get angry and defensive about being fact checked or having his statements analyzed by the free press.

But Sanders’s remedy for what ails the media — uncritical, stenographic coverage of his agenda — betrays a misunderstanding of the role of a free press. And his dismissal of legitimate journalism not to his liking as “political gossip” bears a troubling resemblance to what another politician refers to as “fake news.”
..................................................................................................
“He would not be happy with anything that did not basically publish his press release in its entirety — word for word, quote for quote,” said Graff, who spent nearly three decades reporting in Vermont for the AP.

Back when Sanders held regular news conferences in Vermont — it’s been a few years — he typically refused to answer questions unrelated to his chosen topic of the day. That’s problematic for local reporters, who rarely have the opportunity to quiz the members of Congress they cover without spokespeople running interference.

At a 1985 forum on the media, the late Vermont political columnist Peter Freyne complained to Sanders, then the mayor of Burlington, that he had reneged on his promise to hold regular press conferences, pointing out that “When asked a question you don’t want to answer, you leave the room.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/26/ive-reported-bernie-sanders-years-free-press-cant-give-him-what-he-wants/


https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/the-media-bern-sanders-keeps-vermont-press-at-arms-length/Content?oid=4715938

Is that clearer

[yaesu]

59. Bernie's used to it, MSM did the same to him in '16. He just brushes it off as politics as usual.

MSM will probably pick our candidate again because the sheeple are just too stupid to know whats best for them.

[prodigitalson]

106. So it's not true? Good

I figured it was satire. Nobody would be that stupid.

[Demsrule86]

160. Sanders is smearing Biden...and...calling it vetting.

SANDERS: STRONG ON THE COPS PROGRAM
Voted for the 1994 Crime Bill that Created the COPS Program. [Vote #416, 8/21/94, conference report on H.R.3355, Sanders: Y]
Voted for $7.5 Billion for Cops on the Beat Program . [Vote #124, 2/14/95, H.R.728, failed 196-235, Sanders: Y]
Voted for Reauthorization of COPS Program . [Vote #232, 6/17/99, H.R.1501, failed 191-233, Sanders: Y]
Voted for $300 Million Increase to $1.3 Billion Total for COPS Program . [Vote #386, 8/5/99, H.R.2670, failed 208-219, Sanders: Y]
Voted for $11.7 Million Increase for COPS Meth Seizure Program . [Vote #233, 7/17/01, H.R.2500, failed 187-227, Sanders: Y]
Voted for $106.9 Million for the COPS Program. [HR 4754, Vote #330, 7/7/04; CQ Vote Report #330, 7/7/04; Houston Chronicle, 2/3/04; New York Times, 5/25/04; R 74-148; D 131-64; I 1-0]
Voted for $200 Million for Local Law Enforcement Including $100 Million for COPS . [Vote #244, 6/14/05, H.R.2862, failed 196-230, Sanders: Y]
Voted for $10 Million Increase in Funding for COPS Program . [Vote #248, 6/14/05, H.R.2862, failed 260-168, Sanders: Y]


How about this? He ran on the crime bill as late 2006. Above are the relevant votes. This should probably put on twitter.
https://web.archive.org/web/20061018180921/http:/www.bernie.org/truth/crime.html

[sheshe2]

51. Yikes. nt

[yaesu]

52. Back in '83 I learned about living under Soviet rule from a girl I met while hiking across

Isle Royal. I made it to the other side, tired, hot & walked right into cold Lake Superior to cool off, cloths & all. There at the camp dock was a yacht that belonged to an upper class family from Poland. A girl my age came out & greeted me. ended up camping there and enjoying her good company & conversation. She filled me in about life behind the iron curtain, the authoritarian regime, at that time Poland was growing away from Soviet control with trade unions & such so things weren't as bad as other block countries. It just so happened that while I was on that trip the USSR shot down the Korean airliner killing everyone on board & created quite a diplomatic stir.

[HopeAgain]

58. I know somebody that went to Russia in 1978

It was a high school trip. Does that make the person evil? Asking for a friend...

[LongtimeAZDem]

64. Some of us feel that it is wrong to badmouth the US while traveling abroad as an elected official

[HopeAgain]

79. So...

If a Democratic Represetative or Senator goes to France or Germany and criticizes Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Accord, that would be wrong?

[LongtimeAZDem]

87. Yeah, I don't like that either. I didn't like it when Palin did it, and I don't like our people

doing it.

[progressoid]

94. Yeah, Obama too.

[HopeAgain]

113. Okay, doesn't bother me so much.

Difference of opinion, I guess...

[David__77]

71. The implication is that criticizing the Reagan-Bush foreign policy was wrong or immoral.

I don't agree.

[David__77]

70. I'm glad he spoke out against the Reagan-Bush foreign policy.

I'm certainly glad he opposed the Reagan-Bush support of the Nicaraguan contras.

[sop]

74. If Trump runs against Lucifer himself in 2020, I'll vote for the Devil

It's not that I particularly like Satan. I don't, it's just that I detest Trump with the intensity of a thousand supernovas. Mind you, I'm not insinuating Bernie is the Prince of Darkness. Not at all. I like Senator Sanders, and believe he has a very good message on important economic issues, but I prefer other candidates.

Whatever the outcome of the 2020 Democratic primaries, whether my (1st, 2nd or 3rd) choice wins, or not, I simply want to see Donald J. Trump driven from office by a huge landslide of opposition, indicted for his many, many crimes and imprisoned for the remainder of his miserable life. So, I'll pull the lever for Beelzebub if need be, and I urge everyone else to do the same.

[CaptainTruth]

75. I can't wait for all the articles about Democratic candidates who pooped in their diapers as babies.

Because clearly, anyone who pooped their pants is unfit to lead the country, right?

[bloom]

77. I think it's good to have it all out there

And then for people (and hopefully the press) to put it all in a reasonable perspective.

How much weight should such criticisms have compared to the candidates' strengths?

Same considerations should be given to everybody.

I don't like the concept that we should not consider various problems that the various candidates have.

WE all know that Trump's weaknesses completely overshadow any possible good points. That's not the question.

But I would like for people to really consider each candidate and not just go with who they think others would like, etc.

[mac56]

78. Ah yes, the Sanders Daily Dogpile

You can set your watch by it.

[LongtimeAZDem]

89. Ah yes, the daily supporter victim alarm

[Politicub]

90. Where does it say Bernie was "used"? That seems like an unfair characterization of a complex history

Although Bernie isn't my first pick, this article reeks of right wing garbage. Especially when one of its featured sources is a republican operative who unsuccessfully ran a campaign for governor of Vermont.

I'm glad you saved me some time, OP, and snipped the quote. I have bolded the spew:

As he stood on Soviet soil, Sanders, then 46 years old, criticized the cost of housing and health care in the United States, while lauding the lower prices — but not the quality — of that available in the Soviet Union. Then, at a banquet attended by about 100 people, Sanders blasted the way the United States had intervened in other countries, stunning one of those who had accompanied him.

“I got really upset and walked out,” said David F. Kelley, who had helped arrange the trip and was the only Republican in Sanders’s entourage. “When you are a critic of your country, you can say anything you want on home soil. At that point, the Cold War wasn’t over, the arms race wasn’t over, and I just wasn’t comfortable with it.”

As for the substance, I, too, am critical of the cost of housing and healthcare in the U.S. And, I'm no fan of how the U.S. intervened in foreign countries in the Reagan administration.

I'm tired of seeing "uncomfortable" republicans complaining about behavior of their political enemies. It's ridiculous and shoddy, cheap journalism by the Washington Post to ascribe value to whatever republican operatives say. I like the Post. I think it's an important voice. But this article doesn't show the paper at its best.

[keithbvadu2]

99. And now the republican meme is: "Russia is our friend".

[prodigitalson]

103. This has to be satire, right?

right?

[KitSileya]

109. No, it is not.

As someone posted up-thread (aikoakio, I think) there is video of some of these events, and the quotes are taken from articles published at the time and from his own writings. Senator Sanders refused to be interviewed for the article, but that he went to the Soviet Union shortly after his wedding, and that he participated in these celebrations etc is amply documented, as is his visit to Nicaragua, along with his participation at a rally where the audience chanted "The Yankee must die" as well as his trip to Cuba and his admiration for Cuban society after the revolution. No satire.

[prodigitalson]

112. Then he is absolutely unelectable

Thank the gods this isn't coming out with him as our nominee. Sweet Jesus, there is no coming back from that.

[Hekate]

125. His diehard fans will tell you otherwise...

Stick around -- you'll see

[prodigitalson]

128. I have some relatives who were B or Brs last time

they are supporting him again but swear they will vote for whoever the new nominee is. We shall see.

I have two cousins who posted some Internet Research Agency stuff last go round. One was for Trump and the other for Bernie then Stein.

Two first cousins totally fooled by Ruski agitprop.

[melman]

118. DU math

4 years = super long time ago. why would anyone even bring something up from four years ago???


31 years = totally relevant and so very very disturbing.

[Cha]

141. Actually, I think everything needs

to be brought up.. and will be.

Just a matter if people think is important enough to disqualify them for being our Democratic candidate.

[Hekate]

120. Someone is finally being vetted, isn't he?

[lunamagica]

127. Yes. Took long enough, but it is finally happening

[aidbo]

126. Loooooool!

[tishaLA]

132. From the transcript of his most recent town hall on CNN...

QUESTION: Hi, Senator Sanders. So my father's family left Soviet Russia in 1979 fleeing from some of the very same socialist policies that you seem eager to implement in this country. So my question is, how do you rectify your notion of democratic socialism with the failures of socialism in nearly every country that has tried it?

SANDERS: And do you think that... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you for asking that question. Is it your assumption that I supported or believe in authoritarian communism that existed in the Soviet Union? I don't and never have. And I opposed it.

So....?

[Gothmog]

135. No one took sanders seriously in 2016 and so sanders was not vetted

No one took sanders seriously and so he was not vetted. Vetting is important I amso glad that sanders is being vetted this cycle https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/28/why-bernie-sanders-has-an-uphill-climb-ahead/?utm_term=.1b4f90c2a717

Finally, what happens when the oppo dump on Sanders comes? We have no idea, because it never happened in 2016. Clinton was so terrified of alienating his supporters and seeing them vote for Jill Stein in the general election (or not vote at all) that she tiptoed around him for pretty much the entirety of the primary campaign. That doesn’t mean that he’ll be destroyed when stories about the more colorful aspects of his history start cropping up, but there’s just no way to know.

Which is what we could say about the Sanders candidacy as a whole: There’s no way to know how it’s going to go. But he’s got his work cut out for him.

See also https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-campaign-donald-trump/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2019-02-20T14%3A52%3A07&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social%C2%A0

2. How will he withstand more scrutiny and more attacks?
One of the secrets to Sanders' success in 2016 was that no one -- most especially Clinton -- thought he had any chance of going anywhere in the race. Clinton largely ignored him for the better part of 2015, allowing some problematic parts of Sanders' record for Democrats -- most notably his voting record on guns -- to go unnoticed. (When the race began to tighten, Clinton gently prodded Sanders on guns and health care.) Sanders, too, largely flew under the radar of investigative reporters for major news outlets who were busy looking into Clinton, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and others seen as more viable candidates. (That reality clearly benefited Donald Trump in the early days of the campaign, as well.)

Sanders will get no pass -- from either the media or his fellow candidates -- this time around. He is among the frontrunners -- and will be treated as such. His wife's time as president of Burlington College could well come up. And his opponents will do a deep dive into his nearly 30 years of votes as a member of the House and Senate. This is all very normal stuff in a campaign. But not for Sanders.

The GOP has a ton of OPPO on sanders

[sop]

137. Clinton failed to appreciate the recalcitrance of many Bernie supporters

She assumed they would vote against Trump when it counted, but a sufficient number of them voted against her instead.

[Cha]

142. You're Wrong.. Hillary didn't "assume" anything.

[floppyboo]

139. Sounds like he was being a polite tourist

Not the Republican American type that have earned the bad reputation abroad.

[Gothmog]

143. The GOP had a large oppo file on sanders and there are more stories like this

If Sanders had been the nominee, Trump would have destroyed him. Trump had a two foot thick book of oppo research on sanders http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach....

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers....

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

I am very happy that sanders is being vetted this cycle.