Lay off Bernie Sanders people

[Truth2Tell]

the guy is on our side.

Here's the thing... Bernie Sanders cast the vote that did the most good in the position that he was in. Bernie knew this bill was going to pass with or without his support. Olympia Snowe was trotted out early on to drive that point home. Stopping the passage of this bill would have required a coalition on the progressive side of more than one lone Independent from Vermont. That didn't exist. So Bernie had to choose between a bill that included his input (billions for community health centers, etc), but was still very bad, or a bill that included Olympia Snowe's input instead, and was even worse. But he knew the bill was going to pass either way.

His vote doesn't mean he likes the bill.

I personally oppose final passage of the Senate version of the HCR bill. I think it does more harm than good. (Which means nothing and the bill will pass.) Yet I understand Bernie's vote. If any sliver of hope had existed for actual progressive Senate Democratic opposition to this bill, I would have been pissed if Sanders didn't participate. But that wasn't reality. Bernie is a Party of one. This train was departing regardless of him. So even if this bill ends up doing more harm than good in the long run, I think Bernie's vote will end up doing more good than harm.

And I just don't believe the guy is bought or paid for by anyone. Just my opinion.

[Rhiannon12866]

1. K&R for Senator Sanders!

And I agree that he's following his conscience and doing the best he can to represent his constituents. :patriot: You sure can't say that about every senator. x(

[nofurylike]

2. k&r. absolutely. very well said, Truth2Tell. thank you! nt

[laughingliberal]

3. I understand Bernie's position perfectly and agree with OP

What is disingenuous is for people to push the idea that this bill is good cause Sanders is voting for it. He has done what he could to mitigate some of the damage with the CHC money and it would have passed with or without him due to the Snowe factor.

[FrenchieCat]

5. I trust Sen. Sanders words......

and he has said:

“The bill is not as strong as I wanted and I will work to improve it, but it begins to move this country toward the long-time goal of providing comprehensive, affordable health care for all Americans. The legislation would provide health insurance for 31 million people, end the odious practice of denying care for people with pre-existing conditions, and provide affordable primary care and low-cost prescription drugs for 25 million more Americans in 10,000 more communities. We can do better, but this is an important step forward.”
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=5649DBD3-D1BD-45DA-ABFE-B158CBB87305


I'd rather go by what he said, then by what others interpret from his clear words.

[laughingliberal]

6. You're certainly entitled to believe what you want

As am I.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Yes.....true. I believe Sen. Sanders words that he wrote down.

And I believe that he believes them too....

This means that the bill, although not great (cause it could have been better), is not the nightmare some are trying to make it out to be. It won't make matters worse, which is the talking point of those who hate this bill, half of which are expressing an opinion but haven't really bothered to read any of it....they just piggy back off of what others say, and repeat it adnauseum.

[laughingliberal]

8. And I do not believe them as he wrote them down but I would hardly expect anyone

to say I am voting for a horrible bill because the administration is prepared to negotiate away more benefits for the people to get Snowe's vote if I don't. I have read the bill. I read all the bills out of every committee. Have not quite made it through the mananger's amendment but have followed the reports closely. I did not just come to the realization that this was the reality of Sander's position with this post. I saw an interview with Snowe several days ago where she was very being a tad neutral, raising concerns but definitely was not committing to voting against it. This was a couple of days before the test vote. I thought then that she was in the wings if any progressives defected and that she would extract a price for it which would have made it even worse than it is. This was exactly what I thought when I heard her in the interview and it is exactly what I thought when Sanders decided to vote for it and was able to get the funding for the CHC's in it.

As I said you are entitled to believe what you choose as am I. The truth is that, unless one of us has a direct line to Snowe or Sanders, neither of us knows for sure so it remains in the realm of what one chooses to believe.

[FrenchieCat]

9. I don't need a direct line to Sanders.....

he spoke already, and I know for sure what he said, cause he said it.

[laughingliberal]

11. I also know what he said and I believe there are deals behind the scenes that influenced him

and you do not, obviously, agree with that. I am convinced Snowe was prepared to sell her vote for more compromise on the bill if any of the progressives defected and I think he did the only thing he could do under the circumstances. I admire him for getting an improvement to the bill in return. But the fact remains that neither of us knows and we each have an opinion to which we are entitled.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Your theory is speculative heresy without backup from any reliable source.....

My position is based on the words of the person of which we are speaking of.

Words spoken out of subject's mouth and written on his website are stronger
than a theory in where you speculate why he voted on this bill....
although he already told us why.

You certainly can believe what you want to believe,
but there are no facts that you are citing,
so in the end, my opinion is substantiated,
while your opinion is not.

Our two opinions are therefore not equal.

[freddie mertz]

16. "Heresy"? A Typo or a Freudian slip?

Coming from one of the prime inquisitors (progressive critics of the president are freeper moles, etc), it's hard not to think the latter.

Very funny in any case.

[inna]

27. indeed.

[laughingliberal]

20. So, this is religion now?

The words Bernie Sanders spoke are not in and of themselves proof that my theory is not true. He thinks its better to pass the bill than not pass it and I do believe one strong reason for that may well be they were prepared to compromise the bill further to get Snowe on board if he had filibustered it. I agree with him doing it in light of this. If, in fact, that is what was going on I would not have expected him to say so. That would have been stupid.

This is not a religion and our leaders are not gods. They can and often do make compromises and some are necessary. This post was about laying off Bernie Sanders. In light of what I believe we going on behind the scenes with this bill I have said he made the right decision. I think there are more factors involved in his decision than you do. If that is not the case then I think it was a bad decision and believe he should have filibustered. I am laying off Sanders but you're incensed that it is because I believe he acted to prevent the bill from getting worse?

Even when you win you're not happy? What, your pony didn't come with a saddle? :sarcasm:

[Truth2Tell]

37. Maybe you take too many things at face value?

:shrug:

[donco6]

19. +1

[Hekate]

4. KnR

[Hippo_Tron]

10. It could've existed though, if the progressives were really willing to vote against the bill

If a coalition of say Sanders, Feingold, Burris, and Harkin had gotten together and demanded a public option just as Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, and Nelson demanded that there be no public option, Reid would've had to find some compromise that would pacify both sides, if he really believed that both sides would vote against the bill if they didn't get their way.

However the conservative dems got what they wanted and the progressives didn't which leads me to believe that the conservatives were truly willing to vote against the bill whereas the progressives where not.

Maybe Harkin is a bit of a stretch given his leadership role but I can't imagine that if Bernie really thought this bill was worse than the status quo that he would have trouble convincing Feingold (also very progressive) and Burris (progressive and has nothing to lose) to join him in seriously fighting it. Reid would then have to get Snowe, Collins, and a third Republican (I guess Voinovich would be the third most moderate Republican these days) in order to break them and it would be highly unlikely he could get all three.

The bottom line is that I think the progressives in the Senate (Sanders included) genuinely believe that this bill is better than the status quo. Or put a more cynical way, they believe that passing this bill will make their chances of being re-elected greater than keeping the status quo. That's why they weren't able to effectively bargain with the conservadems.

[Truth2Tell]

28. Hippo_Tron, I think that's close.

Where I would slightly disagree is with your assertion that this vote is calculated by Sanders or others to IMPROVE their political chances. I actually think the reality is that the vote simply keeps their political chances from being destroyed. It certainly had to be on Sander's (and everyone else's) mind that a no vote on HCR would mean sure political death at the hands of the forces of Obamanation. Part of what Sanders doesn't say in his rationalization statement that Frenchie posted upthread is that a no vote would likely have ended his career.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. Same thing really

By improve their chances I meant mitigating damage to their chances as well.

[deutsey]

13. Sanders also used his vote to make sure money would create more community health centers

And not just in Vermont, but nationally.

To me, that's what more politicians should do. Not obstruct in the interests of business and the powerful (paging Mr. Lieberman) or holding their vote hostage unless they can bring a lot of pork to their state (like that Dem Senator who got a lot of Medicaid or Medicare money for his state in return for his vote).

Sanders saw this turd of a bill was going to go through so he opted to give his vote in return for more money allocated to poor and working Americans who can benefit from new healthcare centers in their communities.

Imagine that. A senator actually using his power to benefit the common good.

It's a great idea. Maybe it will catch on some day.

[hlthe2b]

14. Agree whole heartedly... Sanders is the real deal and he has my support

I may not always agree with him, but I know he has good reasons for his positions--ones that have our best interests at heart.

[Enthusiast]

15. Rec. I agree. nt

[blondeatlast]

17. Agreed. Sanders is a SMART politician--and that is not meant as an insult.

Good politicians know how to game things and Sanders, et al, have confidence that this thing can be improved upon.

[daa]

18. So let me see if I understand this

Lieberman sticks to his principles and is a turd to be kicked out of the party and Sanders caves and he is a hero?

And don't bother saying Lieberman for for this and then against it because I hard a dozen progressives on TV or the Ed show saying no public option, no vote.

[RainDog]

25. the point is that public community health care centers IS a public option

so if you want a public option, you should support Sanders. simple as that.

[Truth2Tell]

29. Lieberman sticks to his principles?

What principles? Lieberman acted in the interests of his corporate masters only. Sanders did what he thought would help the most people. If you can't see the difference between those actions then God help you.

[RainDog]

30. corporate whoreishness is Lieberman's principle, imo. n/t

[557188]

21. I am a socialist against Bernie now

HE SOLD OUT!

It's as simple as that. Dennis Kucinich stood behind his principals and voted no. It's absolutely ridiculous the so called "socalist" (HA) would vote for mandated CORPORATE insurance. Absolutely ridiculous.

If Kucinich, an actual Democrat, can vote against this scam then I most certainly expect a SOCIALIST to vote no on an even worse bill.

[RainDog]

24. bullshit. and, honestly, I think your comment is astroturf. n/t

[Truth2Tell]

31. Kucinich sometimes votes yes or no on bills

in contravention of what he believes about the bill - believe it or not. Most politicians do. If Dennis thinks there is no hope of stopping something at all, he will sometimes negotiate a yes vote to mitigate a bill's potential damage. He doesn't do it a lot, but he sometimes does it because it sometimes makes the most sense in the big picture of pushing his progressive values.

I agree that Sanders voted for a bill with these abominable mandates. But the alternative was the same bill, minus his contributions. Those were the ONLY alternatives for Bernie. He chose the right one, I believe.

[truedelphi]

32. Kucinich has a vote that matters far less thanSanders

He can afford the principles. His vote is only one of five hundred and some.

Sanders voting for the bill was crucial to having the bill. He was careful to get something in return, and that makes what he did more acceptable for those of us who are in great opposition to the bill.

Community health clinics - there is a ood deal for America. And I trust that Bernie will continue to pummel with all his might to reform this piece of crap legislation until it is something that benefits American citizens more than the Big Medical And Big Insurance interests.

[Truth2Tell]

34. Exactly, people seem to ignore MOTIVATION.

Sanders is not trying to achieve the same things Lieberman is, so to equate them is absurd.

On occasions when Kucinich has been in similar positions he has and will make similar deals. Ultimately both these guys make decisions based on POLICY OUTCOMES not politics, and that makes them EXTREMELY rare in this business.

[Odin2005]

22. K&R

[Cetacea]

23. K&R

:thumbsup:

[mmonk]

26. Bernie voted the way he did to have the last say and give us the

last say in a bill he doesn't like. He is going to channel the anger into one last push on the final bill. That is his strategy and it's up to us to make it work.

[laughingliberal]

36. +1 nt

[MH1]

35. k & r