It’s Not Just Healthcare


This article outlines how one might break up a big bank, either legislatively or via Dodd-Frank. Neither is as easy (or likely) as Bernie seems to think it is.


God, I finally got around to reading this Bernie Sanders interview with the New York Daily News and it’s just as I’ve been saying for months now (here, here, here, to name a few): he just doesn’t seem to understand the fundamentals of the issues he’s most passionate about. Bernie’s most passionate supporters should really be concerned about this, but near as I can tell, they’re just writing off every negative story by attacking the messenger.

Look, it’s not enough to just say, this thing is bad. You’re running for president because supposedly you’re the guy to fix it. And to fix the stuff that’s broken, you need more than just a wagging finger and a pissed off message. You need to know how stuff works.

I don’t think Bernie Sanders understands the difference between being an activist and being a president. An activist can get away with speaking truth to power and calling for needed change, but a president actually needs to know how to do it. For example: I’m a good enough liberal to nod my head in agreement when Bernie says,

I believe that we can and should move to what Pope Francis calls a moral economy.

But how are you going to do that? What does that look like? How do we make that happen? What is the mechanism?

As his interview with the NYDN shows, he has no clue how Wall Street even works, let alone what needs to be done to reform it. For example, on his pledge to break up the big banks his first year in office:

Daily News: Okay. Well, let’s assume that you’re 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 don’t 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?

Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do.

Okay, got that? Sanders seems very clear on his assertion that Dodd-Frank gives a president — and that means his administration — the authority to order a “too big to fail” bank to be broken up. But as to how you unpack that in the real world, beyond the grandiose platitudes about a stronger national economy … well, he’s a little muddy.

Daily News: So if you look forward, a year, maybe two years, right now you have…JPMorgan has 241,000 employees. About 20,000 of them in New York. $192 billion in net assets. What happens? What do you foresee? What is JPMorgan in year two of…

Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses. Does not live as an island onto themselves concerned about their own profits. And, in fact, creating incredibly complicated financial tools, which have led us into the worst economic recession in the modern history of the United States.

Daily News: I get that point. I’m just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don’t understand. So, what I’m asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?

Sanders: I’m not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.

Daily News: No. But you’d be breaking it up.

Sanders: That’s right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That’s not my decision. All I am saying is that I do not want to see this country be in a position where it was in 2008, where we have to bail them out. And, in addition, I oppose that kind of concentration of ownership entirely.


Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I’m a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order…

Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.

Umm, actually he kinda did. He says it at every campaign stop, too.

Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I’m not quite…

Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.

And he just said it again. Okay, so moving forward:

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?

Sanders: It’s something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.

He hasn’t studied the legal implications? That’s troubling, to say the least. Even Obama, a professor of constitutional law, had to deal with legal challenges to Obamacare … and he didn’t always get it right.

Sanders does the same thing when asked about Israel, saying all the right things about Israel having a right to exist but recognizing the suffering of the Palestinian people, and saying,

[…] Israel is not, cannot, just simply expand when it wants to expand with new settlements.

But how that manifests in a real Bernie Sanders administration? We get more waffling.

Daily News: I was talking about something different, though. Expanding settlements is one thing; coming into office as a President who said as a baseline that you want Israel to pull back settlements, that changes the dynamic in the negotiations, and I’m wondering how far and what you want Israel to do in terms of pulling back.

Sanders: Well, again, you’re asking me a very fair question, and if I had some paper in front of me, I would give you a better answer. But I think if the expansion was illegal, moving into territory that was not their territory, I think withdrawal from those territories is appropriate.

Daily News: And who makes the call about illegality, in your mind?

Sanders: Well, I think that’s based on previous treaties and ideas. I happen to think that those expansions were illegal.

Daily News: Okay, so if we were to find Israeli settlements, so-called settlements, in places that has been designated to be illegal, you would expect Israel to be pulling them back?

Sanders: Israel will make their own decisions. They are a government, an independent nation. But to the degree that they want us to have a positive relationship, I think they’re going to have to improve their relationship with the Palestinians.

So what are we talking about here?

Bernie Sanders is a liberal Trump. It’s not enough to just talk about how you want to make America great again. You need to have a plan. So, what’s the plan for breaking up the banks? What’s the plan for Israel? What’s the plan for trade deals and taking on ISIS? When asked about what he’d do with a captured ISIS commander, Sanders said he’d imprison him. But where?

Daily News: Where?

Sanders: And try to get as much information out of him. If the question leads us to Guantanamo…

Daily News: Well, no, separate and apart from Guantanamo, it could be there, it could be anywhere. Where would a President Sanders imprison, interrogate? What would you do?

Sanders: Actually I haven’t thought about it a whole lot. I suppose, somewhere near the locale where that person was captured. The best location where that individual would be safely secured in a way that we can get information out of him.

Daily News: Would it be in the United States?

Sanders: Would it be in the United States? It could be, yeah.

Daily News: Yeah. I mean, some of these places are lawless lands. You’ve got Libya, you’ve got Yemen. If Special Forces…

Sanders: If the question is do I believe that terrorists could be safely imprisoned in the United States, the answer is yes.

Okay, but Obama tried that and failed. Imprisoning someone in a foreign country implies a whole level of global influence that seems at odds with Sanders’ more Libertarian streak where foreign affairs is concerned. Shouldn’t he have thought this stuff through? And why aren’t the Bernie babies more concerned about this stuff? Doesn’t substance matter to liberals anymore? Are we so enamored of someone who says the right things that we don’t care if it’s just empty rhetoric? That doesn’t make us any better than than the Trump people.


Filed under 2016 Presidential Election

41 responses to “It’s Not Just Healthcare

  1. Mary L. Wilson

    Thank YOU, SB. These are my concerns as well…problems identified BUT NO Clear solutions and NO in depth of understanding of exactly HOW to be effective as President.

  2. Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    Have to add one thing, because someone is bound to bring it up. This is not the “old” DAILY NEWS, the one Phil Ochs sang about, which really was that bad, the equivalent of today’s POST or worse. (And which, surprisingly, was actually the center of the pack when we had 7 newspapers in NYC, The DAILY MIRROR, the JOURNAL-AMERICAN, and the WORLD-TELEGRAM&SUN were actually worse. Back then, it was the POST which was the (eccentrically and unpredictably) ‘liberal one.’)

    That last line now describes the NEWS, and makes it, more than the NYT, the paper to follow from NYC. All (okay, most) TIMES columnists — and too many writers — have ‘pundititis’ and opthalmologists have not discovered cure for that ‘eye’ (and ‘I’) disease. The NYDN has its problems, is hardly a union-haven, etc. But overall, it is likely to take a position — or sometimes five different positions — while the NYT is sill ‘defining the parameters.’ And its positions are pretty close to either side of center,

    • Mary L. Wilson

      Thanks, Jim. I have tried to stay neutral til August, but the devil is in these details, as they say.

  3. Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    Details and Bernie Sanders don’t seem to belong in the same sentence. And one thing that no one seems to be bringing up is Bernie’s age — and I am three years younger — and two days *shudder* than Drumpf — and I’ll do it. Your mind does tend to lose things as you get older and the pressure of campaigning for the Presidency ages you faster than almost anything except actually becoming President.

    The ‘subway’ bit is hilarious at first look. I think it has been twenty years since subway tokens were phased out — it is at least a decade. Yet Bernie thinks hey are still being used, and when he was corrected about how he would get on the subway and was told ‘use a token’ was wrong, suggested jumping the turnstile. Okay, that was an obvious joke, but it was part of the back talk that scared me.

    During the discussion, Bernie turns to one of his aides and asks, “Mike, when were we here? About a year ago?” But, as a resident of Midwood myself, I was fascinated to read the coverage of Bernie’s ‘return to his old neighborhood’ that occurred about two or three months ago (Actually on Feb, 10th, less than two months) — and that he had bought a gyro from a store I had just patronized myself. If this has slipped his mind, given the coverage it received, I have severe worries about how many other things will stick.

    I’m sorry to say this, but I have gone from ‘we have two good candidates’ to ‘well, he’s at least better than Trump or Cruz.’ I am not sure that anything other than SCOTUS and the nominations that will need to be made could get me to vote for Bernie over an ‘ordinarily awful’ Republican like Kasich or even Romney — and the last time I voted against a Democrat was when Frank Rizzo was running for Mayor of Philly and I was living there. But, by now, I am convinced that if I have to vote for Bernie, I will, and will expect that his Presidency will set Progressivism, Liberalism, and Democratic principles back about four decades

    • My Twitter feed was full of “concerned” comments from people after Bernie gave some talk in Phoenix last night? Something of that nature? Lots of “between this and his NYDN interview, I wonder if he’s suffering from dementia.”

      I don’t know what any of that was about but maybe someone else does.

      • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

        Haven’t heard about it, but will check Blog for Arizona immediately and get back if they covered it. (They have one fanatical Barnberner, but the rest are pretty reliable..) I’ll edit this if they have any important news.

      • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

        Nothing there, please, SBites, help on this!

  4. Excellent breakdown of the disastrous interview, SB. I supported Sanders in the beginning of the campaign; I was his to lose, and he lost me. Several months ago, I switched to Clinton and I’ve never regretted my choice. For a while, I tried to stay neutral in my public statements, but I am now vocally speaking against Sanders. His promises of free this and free that with no details about how he will deliver the goods have me on my last nerve. While Sanders may mean well, he has very little credibility. All this with the caveat that, of course, I will vote for him if he is the nominee against Cruz, Trump, or whoever else the GOP chooses.

    The word going around now is that the questions were prosecutorial and hostile to Sanders, and the questioners asked gotcha questions, so the interview was not fair. Good heavens! Who thinks a US president will never be questioned by folks who are hostile? Suck it up, Bernie, and be better prepared for your next interview. BernieBots, stop attacking the messenger, and urge your candidate to do better next time.

    • The word going around now is that the questions were prosecutorial and hostile to Sanders, and the questioners asked gotcha questions….

      Let’s count the number of times in the interview that Bernie says “that’s a fair question,” too. Clearly Bernie didn’t feel like they were “gotcha” questions.

    • Kathleen

      June, I was for Hillary from the start but I had no problems with Sanders running in the primary. But after learning about his constant carping against President Obama, his repetition of right wing smears about Hillary, his support from Karl Rove’s PAC, his support for the NRA, his criticism of Democratic Party primary/caucus rules after joining the party only to benefit from financial support and media coverage, his lawsuit against the Democratic Party, and his inability (or refusal) to provide tax returns, I asked myself what’s the difference between him and a Republican.

      Also, it amazes me how his cult followers (not all his supporters are cult followers) and the media don’t ask such basic questions such as, what has he done to demonstrate he is serous about balancing income inequality. What is his voting record? What alliances has he forged, either in Congress or in communities? He’s made statements that he’s not interested in being a leader. How does he see his role? What can he do to effect change as President, member of Congress, or individual? I do not see these questions being asked enough, though the NYDN interview was a good first step.

      There are many other things about him and his campaign I don’t like at all (I won’t even go into the nastiness of some of his supporters and the publishing of the contact information of Super Delegates). He and his record need to be vetted (what about the “rape fantasy” fan fic he wrote when he was 30? What about shipping toxic nuclear waste from Vermont to a poor Hispanic immigrant community in Texas? What about his support of the NRA’s agenda (which must be OK because it’s not “Wall Street”)? What about his vote against the auto bailout? What about his vote against the Amber Alert law? What does this guy really stand for?

      Not only can he not articulate what he or his administration would do in the future, what does electorate really know about the truth of his past?

      If by some chance he were nominated, I would not vote for him. I seem to be one of the few Democrats who would not, but I think he’s that incompetent and untrustworthy.

      • Kathleen, when Sanders turned against a sitting Democratic president, I knew his loyalty to the party was zilch. I’ve had my problems with the party, but in a situation as dire as the present, dividing the party is dangerous. I stayed publicly silent about Sanders for a good while, but when he began using GOP talking points to smear Clinton, I had enough and began to speak out.

    • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

      Dear Bernie:
      Have you ever heard the word ‘swiftboating’? Have you watched a strong ex-war hero thrown entirely off his stride by being attacked on what he thought was one of his strengths?

      Or what about how Obama’s sharing a seat on one foundation board — which included several Conservative Republicans — with Bill Ayers was turned into a life-long relationship with the suggestion that Ayers ghost-wrote Obama’s autobiographies. And birtherism and Obama’s supposedly being a Muslim, the pure fantasies that were believed by Republicans even before one Birther-in-chief became the favorite for the nominee, with his main opponent’s father and chief surrogate also being a birther. (And even now few weeks pass without several fringe — or not so fringe — characters accuse Obama not of just being ‘weak on terrorism’ but actually working to support ISIS, as a way to bring down America because of its arrogance, or other reasons. The repetitious comments by Marco Roboto about ‘it’s not an accident’ was specifically that sort of dog whistle.

      For that matter, remember Sandra Fluke? Maybe, but do you remember what — and who — her testimony was actually about, or were you as much a victim of Limbaugh as almost everyone else was? (Reminder: her testimony was about a lesbian friend who didn’t need the pill for contraception — but needed it for endrometriosis (I think). She never, in fact, mentioned her own use of them, if any.)

      Now realize how unvetted you are, and just imagine what could be turned up by even casual digging. Then imagine that tape, unquestionably of you, praising Castro and the Ortegas ebing run hundreds of times — and that doesn’t even take any lying to look bad.

      You better develop a thick hide, and fast.

      • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

        I’m sorry, Bernie, that I didn’t remind you that the current Republican front-runner openly discussed the possibility of President Obama being involved in the death of Justice Scalia. (It was on the Alex Jones show, it’s late enough to say ‘citation upon request.)

      • I know, Bernie and his kids are wholly unprepared for that.

  5. Bob Fischer It seems that not everyone agrees with your analysis. Here is another view to balance this discussion.

  6. Bob Fischer

    Perhaps several not everyones. The thing about Sanders goals is this, if he were to get halfway there and be labeled a dismal failure by Clinton supporters, the middle class would still be better of than we will be if Clinton’s “stay the course” policy are implemented. What we will have under a Sanders administration is an ongoing dialog being put forth to force the functioning of American government. He will educate Americans by proxy and more than anything else, that is what this nation needs.

    • “the thing about Sanders goals is this, if he were to get halfway there and be labeled a dismal failure by Clinton supporters, the middle class would still be better off….”

      Actually, not really. Again … this is not a “halfway there” discussion. When someone says he’s going to break up the big banks, you don’t half do it. You either do or you don’t. And a candidate who doesn’t seem to have given much thought to the “how” does not bode well for anyone.

      Furthermore, have “progressives” given ANY thought to what a failed Bernie Sanders candidacy means? I have. I know what it means if he gets the nomination and loses to the Republican. Progressives will have effectively lost whatever momentum they have now. They will have marginalized themselves forever. When you run as “the outsider” and you LOSE? You have made yourself irrelevant. You have proven every negative thing that’s ever been said about you to be correct.

      So if Bernie does get the nomination? You’d better make damn sure your revolution shows up. So far it ain’t happening. Wisconsin was Bernie’s last big win, yet an anti-choice right-wing Republican zealot still “somehow” won her seat on the Supreme Court. Bernie may have won the Democratic primary but his voters didn’t think about down-ballot races.

      That ain’t no revolution. That’s hero worship, and that should be a huge concern for you guys.

      • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

        Rachel Maddow did a piece on this judge — it’s at about minute 14 of a long piece — who both Democratic candidates criticized. The key is watching Bernie’s response — when he calls the Governor “Governor Scott” and doesn’t mention why the Judge should be turned down except that the Governor is trying to ‘take control’ of the Supreme Court by making sure a judge — already on the Supreme Court is reelected.

        Then watch Hillary’s carefully researched comment, which shows the abhorrent comments the judge had made — including calling birth control ‘morally abhorrent; and calling doctors who provide it to women ‘accessories to murder.

        If I were still on the fence, that comparison would have shoved me over. Bernie just called for a big turnout, and didn’t mention — as he rarely does — the specific type of misogyny that involves women’s health. (And, btw, compare how he sounds on the tape. )

      • In the NYDN interview where he talks about how his revolution is a real thing … It hasn’t been. Dem primary turnout hasn’t reflected any kind of Democratic revolution though it might be a harbinger of a Republican one.

        I find THIS, from exit polling firm Benchmark, troubling:

        As you can see in the above exit polling data, only 78.67% of Sanders voters told us that they voted for Kloppenburg compared to 92% of Clinton voters. The primary in Wisconsin did not list party affiliation. As such, this may have been confusing for some people new to the party or young voters. That certainly seems to be the case, where over 20% of young voters, combining Clinton and Sanders totals with young voters, simply elected not to vote at all in the election. Likewise, Bradley was listed first and young voters on both sides seem to have picked Bradley. We doubt that this is because they actually preferred Bradley – Bradley has taken stances that are quite at odds with the Democratic Party on many issues.

        Bradley is a far-right nutball. Anti-abortion, anti-gay, you name it. It doesn’t bode well for the “revolution” if it begins and ends with electing Bernie Sanders. And Sanders hasn’t done jack shit to elect other candidates — the very candidates he will need to realize his agenda.

      • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

        I am almost as scared about a Bernie win — especially if he refuses to work for down ballot candidates except by (supposedly) increasing the turnout. (How many Democratic contests have actually shown an increase in turnout? Remember, his 80% victory in Alaska represented less than 500 votes — in the entire state. Not his margin, the whole Democratic vote for him,)

        A Bernie win could leave him so impotent, would make his Presidency so much a failure that it would set Progressivism back six decades, at least. (Which would still be better than Cruz, who’d set civilization back four centuries, or Trump and his bevy of White Nationalist supporters.)

  7. Bob Fischer

    “In an exchange with the New York Daily News editorial board a few days ago, Bernie said he didn’t know if the Fed had authority to break up the big banks but the President does have such authority under the Dodd-Frank Act.

    This drew an onslaught of criticism from the media: “Bernie Sanders Admits He Isn’t Sure How to Break Up Big Banks,” read Vanity Fair’s headline. “This New York Daily News interview was pretty close to a disaster for Bernie Sanders,” said The Washington Post. “How Much Does Bernie Sanders Know About Policy?” asked The Atlantic. The Clinton campaign even said in a fundraising email “on his signature issue of breaking up the banks, he’s unable to answer basic questions about how he’d go about doing it, and even seems uncertain whether a president does or doesn’t already have that authority under existing law.”

    The criticism is bonkers. Bernie was absolutely correct when he said the President has the authority to break up the big banks under Dodd-Frank. He’s repeatedly specified exactly how he’d use that Dodd-Frank authority to do so. His critics are confusing the Dodd-Frank Act with the Federal Reserve. Whether the Fed has the authority on its own to break up the biggest banks is irrelevant.

    Clearly, Bernie has the Democratic establishment worried enough to try to twist his words into pretzels.

    What do you think?”

    This was Robert Reich’s take on the issue.

    • Wow, Bob! Lesson from your links: how to spin a disaster.

    • Yes, the Bernie supporters are spinning this as “gotcha questions” and, as I said in my post, blaming the messenger. Yet in the interview itself Bernie says “that’s a fair question” about a half dozen times. Clearly HE didn’t think these were “gotcha questions.” And as I said in my post, Bernie was contradicting himself, first saying the President does, under Dodd-Frank, have the authority to break up a bank, then saying the President “isn’t a dictator” and so wouldn’t “order” it. I’m sorry but WTF? That’s not twisting his words, that’s called READING. Clearly Bernie doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

      • evodevo

        Yes. I started out hopeful that Bernie offered a more progressive, less corporate-oriented path than Hillary, and still hope he has dragged her at least somewhat leftward, but this interview has me wondering if he has the stamina at his age to go the distance.. Any commenter on at least four of the eco/political blogs I lurk at could have answered these questions in detail. Where are his policy advisors? This is the big time, not a contest in Vermont. I like him, but he’s obviously not ready for primetime. Ask Eliz Warren this question and be prepared to listen for an hour or two to detailed policy stances. Now THERE’S a person who should be in charge of the Fed or the SEC LOL.

  8. Bob Fischer

    They’re not gotcha questions so much as they are hypothetically non-specific questions. It’s like asking a bride at her shower how she’s going to handle an umpire calling her second grade son, whose not even conceived, out on strikes years down the road. The problem with asking an intelligent person hypothetical questions, as you can see from the reactions I posted, is that without qualifying the question in detailed specifics, it is nearly impossible to give a detailed concrete answer. Within a break-up of this nature, there will be two factions, those that benefit, and those that suffer. One of the factors the details of the break-up depends on is who is in control of the institutional side the break-up at that point. Bernie’s been working on this stuff since the eighties. He’s been consistent and as this interview proves, very patient with people who do not understand these issues as well as he does. One can’t interchange specific instances, like Metropolitan Life, with broad based policy. Specific instance does nothing more than dictate future strategy. As is pointed out in Gitmo strategy. Has Obama worked toward a solution to Guantanamo Bay? Yes. Is the solution concluded? No. It’s a lot like the ACA. It’s not that the Daily-News asked “gotcha” questions, it’s that they asked simplistic questions to complex problems and tried to back President Sanders in a corner. The fact that he didn’t follow that lead is not an indication that he doesn’t have a command of the issues (most of the other candidates would have happily stuck their foot in their mouth) it’s an indication that he does. Out of curiosity, how did Hillary respond to these questions?

    • “It’s like asking a bride at her shower how she’s going to handle an umpire calling her second grade son, whose not even conceived, out on strikes years down the road”

      That analogy is only close to accurate if said bride had spent her entire courtship and engagement talking about her plans to have a child who would spend his or her youth playing Little League. I mean, cripes. This is the signature feature of Bernie’s entire campaign, of his entire candidacy, hell of his entire political career. He’s going to break up the big banks, Wall Street is corrupt, the economy is rigged. He’s been repeating the same lines for 30+ years. It doesn’t bother you that he doesn’t have a clue about any of this stuff?

  9. Mary L. Wilson

    SB, this has been one of the absolutely BEST political discussions I have ever witnessed or taken part in. Each person who responded to your initial post has provided facts, not accusations, not angry or defensive rhetoric. I did use the initial post to help me to personally make my selection. Thanks for the ride, all of you. This is how democracy should work!

  10. Bob Fischer

    So, I’m taking that Sanders proposed administrative action under Dodd-Frank, legislative action by promoting Glass-Steagall reintroduction, as well as current legislation that he has helped author, judicial action by promising to vet his Supreme Court mooning to be sure that he/she shares his view that these are constitutional actions and Hillary is dodging the questions. What have I missed?

    • Sanders proposed administrative action under Dodd-Frank…

      What action is that? First he says he would order a bank deemed too big to fail to be broken up. Then he said he wouldn’t, the president isn’t a dictator. Then he said he would.

      1- How is he going to get Glass-Steagall reintroduced? The House is in Republican hands, and thanks to the stupid young people not voting in off-years, has been gerrymandered to shit. Even in the best case scenario, nobody predicts the House will flip Democratic. So that idea is a non-starter.

      2- Furthermore, there has been plenty of discussion about whether Glass-Steagall could have prevented the economic disaster in the first place because what brought down the economy were the investment houses, not the banks.

      …judicial action by promising to vet his Supreme Court mooning to be sure that he/she shares his view that these are constitutional actions

      So what? How does that do anything? Bernie vetting a Supreme Court nominee based on an ideological litmus test (which I might add is a big no-no, as we’ve learned from previous nominations) doesn’t get that person confirmed, nor does it bring a case before the court. That’s not how it works.

      Hillary is dodging the questions? Whatever.

      What have I missed?

      The whole issue of electability, for one thing. The idea that a bunch of kids who were in diapers when the Clinton impeachment was going on and who were raised with a big dose of Clinton hate in their sippie cups might now saddle us with an unelectable atheist, Jewish Socialist should be terrifying to anyone with a fucking brain. As has already been stated over here, Republicans took John Kerry’s war hero status and turned it into a negative with the Swift Boat crapola. He lost his election. They turned wonky Al Gore, a straight-laced, wonky, Boy Scout, into a serial liar. He lost. Let’s hope what they did to Obama is still fresh in everyone’s minds. Obama won, but after being portrayed as a Muslim, America-hating, “terrorist-appeasing” Communist, he can’t even get Republican senators to have lunch his own vetted Supreme Court nominee, let alone get him confirmed.

      Please. Grow the fuck up. A vote for Bernie in the primary is a vote for Ted Cruz or Donald Trump in the general.

      • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

        Thank you for this. Only let’s not get too tied up in the pretty fiction of “The St. Bernard and the Bad Puppies,” Bernie could have stood up to his supporters and told them to stop spreading Republican lies. He didn’t. And when Bret Baier asked if she was honest and truthful and he replied ‘we’ll let the voters decide on that’ — when at no point had Clinton aimed one negative barb at the large target she could have had aimed at — it was no longer a case of benefitting from the underground spreading of the lies — as Krugman says in his column of the 4th — but of joining in. And who the hell benefits except the Republican incumbents who are safer because too many Democrats are staying home.

  11. Bob Fischer

    It’s not about Hillary. It’s about America. Why don’t her supporters understand that?

    • What are you talking about, Bob? Can you be more specific? Speaking for myself
      , I’m all about America.

      • Maybe Bob wants to make America great again.

      • Bob Fischer

        What I’m talking about is this. The Teamsters multi-employer pension plan is busted. Pension plans from all across the spectrum have been raided and bankrupted. Those were not gifts to be given later, those were earned benefits stolen by Bankers and brokers through means that were at one time illegal, that were legalized because of a cozy relationship between Wall Street and legislators. A little bribe money goes a long way in Washington. Student loan debt is now held by millions of former students who had every intention of paying them back until they got to the workplace and found out that the jobs that were there did’t pay well enough to pay back their debt. Oh, and by the way, they changed bankruptcy laws so you’ll always be the banks indentured servant.

        What I’m talking about is that the ACA, while an important first step and an amazing accomplishment, isn’t the answer to America’s healthcare crisis. When a system’s capacity for profit over-rides the general welfare of a population, a healthcare system is broken. Ours is still broken. It’s just that Obama got it hauled to the repair shop.

        What I’m talking about is a man who has spent his career, trying to get enough pieces in place to start putting things together and fixing what Republicans , and so-called moderates, has worked dutifully to destroy since the late seventies. De-regulation has been a dismal failure. The wealthy have not re-invested in America, and Wall Street is simply moving assets to other nations in the real effort to bleed our capital from our system and into the hands of an immoral few.

        Screaming “Bernie’s ideas won’t work!” isn’t a solution. Revolutions have to start somewhere and I would opine that it’s already started with the election of Obama and that, to continue, someone committed to a course of action is needed. I believe that’s Bernie. I believe that the fiction that he’s unelectable is just that, fiction. He is drawing record numbers of people to the polls in Democratic strongholds. That is where we will win the election. It’s well and good to pile up delegates in red states, but in the end, that’s a losing strategy for the general.

        These problems didn’t occur overnight and they won’t be fixed overnight. Like it or not, the big issue for the next presidency is to build momentum and keep educating and engaging the next generation of voters. Denigrating them because our generation lost it’s sense of civic responsibility is not the answer. As I’ve said numerous times during the course of this election, I don’t think slamming Hillary is what this country, nor this party needs. What I do think it needs is an in-depth examination of her ideas and policy to see if they are philosophically and structurally sound and are designed to take this nation back to a point where liberty and justice for all is more than just idol talk by blowhards.

        That’s not happening. Tearing down the ideas of the only candidate of ideas and policy, doesn’t give anyone a reason to vote for anyone else. It merely reinforces an already too high negativity rating. If Hillary wants to win the general election, she needs to win those votes now and transfer the enthusiasm of the Sanders campaign, not alienate his supporters with empty rhetoric. We know why we want Bernie. What we don’t know is whether we should stick with Hillary.

        Finally this. At least as many Sanders supporters as Clinton supporters know how things work. Hillary has no greater, or lessor, chance of instituting policy that republicans are inclined to block than Sanders. Or visa-versa. Change comes slow, but it doesn’t happen at all if one doesn’t recognize and address fundamental problems. And addressing these problems is what Sanders is doing. The reason he is getting response is that he understands the issues facing the common man and the struggles facing the American family. Every other candidate is running a campaign based on fear, hate and hopelessness and essentially telling those of us that get up and punch a time clock every day, “Tough shit. Get over it.” Well, we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore and If Hillary wants our support, she needs to get on board. We want our pensions, retirement and savings back and we want to be able to educate our children. We want the security of knowing our spouses won’t be bankrupted and our life savings drained if we get sick. We want decent affordable healthcare and we want Wall Street and super-pacs out of our elections. We want our country back.

      • Screaming “Bernie’s ideas won’t work!” isn’t a solution. Revolutions have to start somewhere….

        Well I hate to break it to you, but neither is screaming “the economy is rigged!” And by the way, I wish I had some understanding of what Bernie’s solutions ARE. So far he’s shown a very poor understanding of the laws governing our economy. That’s not how you fix things. That’s how revolutions die, Bob.

        It’s not like I don’t care about these same issues, too. But Bernie is not the person to fix them. I’m not saying he’s a bad person or he’s lying or any of that. But he doesn’t have a handle on the finer points that presidential leadership and accomplishment requires. He’s made that clear, repeatedly. He doesn’t know HOW to fix things.

        Hillary may not be the person to fix them, either. Personally, I think she’s going to surprise a lot of people who were raised on the GOP anti-Clinton spin of the past 30 years. She’s not nearly the corrupt, selfish monster she’s been made out to be. But even at her worst, she’s a) electable and b) won’t undo Obama’s progress of the past 8 years.

        People concerned about “America” as you say you are should really be more worried about Bernie’s obvious weaknesses, instead of constantly defending him. I would hope people concerned about these important issues would think very seriously about this stuff, instead of rallying behind the first person who tells them what they want to hear. There may be someone else who will surface in the next 4-8 years better qualified to address these things — Elizabeth Warren, perhaps, or maybe someone else we don’t even know about. Certainly Obama came out of left field.

        That’s all I’ve got to say about it.

  12. Democommie

    Was Bob Fischer a RomBot in the last cycle.

    If Bernie gets the nomination, I will vote for him–and THEN be very happy I have no children to live in GOP engineered shithole that will result from a Refucklican victory.

    • No, no. Bob Fischer is a longtime commenter over here. Hold your fire, Demo.

      • Democommie

        As always, I defer to you in such situations. OTOH, Bernie is becoming a bit more ridiculous every time I see him. FWIW, his core demographic is the young who don’t know much, vs, the Trumpbaggist demographic which is heroically indignorant.

  13. Bob Fischer

    I certainly hope y’all are as right about Hillary as y’all are wrong about Bernie.

    And that’s all I’ve got to say about it.