Bernie Sanders: The Little Socialist That Could – by Amanda S. Green

*Like Thomas the Tank Engine from Hell – SAH

Bernie Sanders: The Little Socialist That Could – by Amanda S. Green

Bernie believes the American public is either too stupid to see through him or we just don’t care. I know, I know. This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Still, when I see it so blatantly displayed as I do in his book, “Our Revolution”, I can only shake my head. Then I despair a bit when I think about how many actually cast their votes for him in the last presidential election. Of course, when your choice is Bernie the open Socialist or Queen Hillary, the closet socialist and empress wannabe, it might be difficult not to vote for him.

As we start the second chapter of Bern’s book, he reminds us that he is the “longest serving independent” in Congress’ history. Now, in one way, he’s correct. He is an “independent” if you count the Democrats and the Republicans as the only political parties in our nation. Or, I guess you could say he’s an independent because he doesn’t side with either of the two major parties. But when you really look at the statement, you see how he is pulling the wool over our eyes.

Let’s start with the elephant in the room. If he is an independent, why did he run for president on the Democratic ticket? That sort of says he identified with them, doesn’t it? Or maybe it shows that Bernie isn’t as dedicated to remaining independent as he’d like us to believe. After all, if the DNC hadn’t worked so hard to torpedo his run, something he supposedly had no idea about until after it happened, wouldn’t he have owed them some form of gratitude for the monies and politicians it put behind him in an attempt to get him elected? That would sort of undermine his “independence”. It would also firmly put that “D” behind his name. Now, I know, the Dems have been moving ever more quickly toward the socialist end of the scale, especially since FDR, but still. . . .

Then there is the simple fact that he identifies as a Democratic Socialist. If you go to his website, you will find a nice – and long – speech by good ole Bern about what he believes and what he believes Democratic Socialism is. Yes, there is a lot in common with the Dems, but he goes so much further than they do, at least publicly. And, by the way, once you identify with a political ideology, you aren’t independent. Independent means you think independently from any one political platform or party and consider the issues from all sides, etc. Bernie has proven over and over again that he is anything but an “Independent”.

But I digress, let’s consider what else this so-called Independent has to say.

His second chapter is supposedly about his political life in Vermont. What becomes clear very quickly is that good ole Bernie liked the political life. He ran for office the first time in 1971. He’d gone to a meeting of a “small third party”, the Liberty Union Party. At the time, Vermont was holding a special election to replace Senator Winston Prouty, who had died in office. A member of the House was giving up his seat to run for Prouty’s senatorial seat. So that, Bernie realized, left two seats up for grabs and this “small third party” was looking for folks to run.

Now Bernie, not being shy even though this was his first time to attend a meeting of the LUP, spoke up. He remembers talking about the economy and Vietnam, among other things. So imagine his surprise when they asked if he wanted to be their nominee for Senate. He was now running for office!

Think about it for a moment. Bernie hadn’t been involved with this political party. He didn’t know them and they didn’t know him. But he was now their senatorial candidate. With no money, no organization and no idea what the hell he was doing, he was now running for office – and not for local office but for the United States Senate. Riiiight.

As I think back, I realize that my campaign was not only a great learning experience and a lot of fun, but it laid the foundation for everything I have done politically since. During that campaign I did as much research as I could into the major issues facing the country, something I very much enjoyed doing, and spoke my mind about them. I didn’t worry about who I offended. (OR, pg. 26)

That’s how the U.S. got saddled with Bernie. He thought it was fun. He didn’t mind who he offended. He didn’t even know the major issues, not really, not until he began researching them. It was typical Bernie. Jump into the middle of something without really knowing what was going on and then go whole hog. Sort of sounds like the last presidential election, doesn’t it? Did he really think the fix wasn’t in from the beginning? Who didn’t know the DNC was going to do everything possible to make sure Hillary was their candidate? The owed it to her after she stepped back to let St. Obama take the nomination eight years earlier.

I guess the only thing good to come out of that election was Sanders lost. Unfortunately, he didn’t stay away from politics. His 2% of the vote didn’t discourage him. Instead, by his own words (OR, pg 27), he wasn’t satisfied with that 2% of the vote. So, he ran for governor. Once again, he ran on the Liberty Union ticket six months later in 1972. Again, he didn’t get discouraged, even though he only received 1% of the vote.

You get the picture. Bernie didn’t like losing. In 1974, he ran for the Senate again. He still ran as a “third-party candidate”. These candidates, according to Bernie, are often viewed as “spoilers” in an election. Duh. It only took him three campaigns to figure that out? I thought he was supposed to be smart.

One thing you can say about Bernie, he’s persistent. He ran again in 1976. This time, he ran for governor. He garnered his highest vote tally – 6%. This would be his last time to campaign with the Liberty Union Party and, for a few years at least, he was out of politics. Not that he didn’t continue to try to push his political agenda. During this time, he “wrote, produced and sold filmstrips” to schools about Vermont’s history. (OR, pg 28) In 1979, he branched out from Vermont history because he discovered that many college students didn’t know who Eugene Victor Debs was. This must have greatly offended Bernie’s socialist bones because he produced a 30-minute film about Debs. It is obvious from the book that Bernie would love to be Debs and so much more.

Debs was a great American, but his life and work remain largely unknown. He was a man of extraordinary courage and integrity whose tireless efforts on behalf of workers and the poor laid the groundwork for many of the programs established by FDR during the New Deal. Debs was the founder of the American Socialist Party and a six-time candidate for president. . . The life of Eugene V. Debs, his vision of a world of peace, justice, democracy, and brotherhood, has always been an inspiration to me. I have a plaque of Debs on a wall in my Washington Senate office. (OR, pg 29)

While Bernie hasn’t run for President six times – yet – no one can deny that he’s become a career politician. Not counting primaries, he has run in something like 21 local, state or national elections since the 1970’s. He might think he has a political revolution going on, but he doesn’t. His revolution is exactly what the Democratic Party has been moving toward since the 1920’s or earlier. The only difference is he openly calls himself what he is – unless it means identifying it on the ballot. He is a socialist. The DNC knows if it should drop the mask completely, it will lose the moderates in the party and that is the last thing it wants to do, at least not yet. So, they define Bernie as an outlier and point and laugh. They will use him in an attempt to get what they really want.

And it is blowing up in their faces, as is seen with the primary win by politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez against the DNC backed candidate. She is now going around the country, targeting other candidates backed by the DNC. Then you have Cynthia Nixon, she of Sex in the City fame, running for New York governor and openly embracing the Social Democratic label.

Bernie has become a thorn in the side of the DNC and he loves it. We, on the other hand, need to keep a close eye on what is happening and continue to fight. Our country has already slipped too far down the road to socialism. We need to put the brakes on now, while there is still hope to at least slow the slide.

Bernie is many things but dumb he’s not. In 1980, when he returned to actively being involved in the political scene, he ran for mayor in Burlington. He’d done his homework and had a plan, something I’m not sure he’d had in those earlier races. This time, he wouldn’t run as part of the Liberty Union Party. Now he was an “independent”. He also created a strategy, one he continues to use today.

We would run a campaign based on coalition politics. We would try to bring together, under one umbrella, the many diverse elements of the city that were unhappy with the current city leadership. And there were a lot of them. Over the years, as is often the case in urban politics, the administration had drifted further and further away from the neighborhoods and the working families of the city, and closer and closer to the downtown business community and the moneyed interests. (OR, pg 30)

Think about it. This is pretty much what he did in his presidential campaign. He reached out to those young voters who felt unconnected to the major parties. He had all the buzz words, all their “concerns” covered. He has, over the years, fine-tuned his approach and too few voters have caught on. they listen to all his pretty promises and condemnation of the status quo. Instead, they should be looking at his voting record, at the bills he’s proposed over the years and asking the hard questions about how he will pay for his high ideas. But they don’t.

So, we have to.

And we have to press him and those coming after him for answers. We have to remember that they won’t all be convenient idiots like Ocasio-Cortez with her ill-considered responses.

Bernie might never be president, but he is teaching a new generation of socialists how to manipulate the public into their corner.

I have never forgotten, however, that the most important political work that can be done is making door-to-door contact, speaking directly to your constituents and answering their questions. We need a lot more grassroots politics in America. (OR, pg 31)

This is where Sanders, and even Trump, out-performed Hillary. Again, fortunately. They not only recognized the need to make that sort of contact, whether it was door-to-door or in rallies, but to have a discourse with them where they spoke to issues that these potential voters felt were important. They connected with the voters, something Hillary didn’t, especially in the primaries. Had the DNC not given her the super votes, the presidential election might have taken a very different turn because the Democratic nominee would have been Bernie.

Like Bernie or not – and I don’t – we can learn from him. We need to learn from him. Otherwise, we are going to see him and those he has trained taking over our government. Our country may be flawed, and we might be slipping down the slope toward socialism but, damn it, we shouldn’t just accept that as inevitable. We should be fighting it tooth-and-nail. We should be doing all we can to understand the tactics of the enemy – the DNC and others who would destroy the basic rights guaranteed each of us in our nation’s founding documents. But to do so, we have to understand the enemy. If we do, then we can use their own tactics and their own arguments against them.

Now pardon me while I go find the brain bleach. I’ve already had too much Bernie and his brand of politics for one day.

(Help Amanda drink enough to keep snarking.  We’ll collect for her liver transplant later.
Hit her Pourboir jar now! – SAH)

131 thoughts on “Bernie Sanders: The Little Socialist That Could – by Amanda S. Green

  1. As he has averred, Bernie’s a Nationalist Socialist – in fact, since like his idol Eugene Debs, he’s dedicated to the cause of the workers, so you could probably get him to agree he’s really a Nationalist Socialist Workers Party kind of guy.

    Now, where have I seen a party name like that before…hmmm…probably has the name of the particular nation in it…hmmm… National Socialist [insert name of country] Worker’s Party…

    Give me a minute, I’ll think of it…

  2. Sanders reminds me of the people who praise single-payer health systems like Great Britain and Canada but come to the US for their medical care. “Free college! Medicare for all! Basic Living Wage [of whatever they are calling it this week]! Just don’t make me actually live like a prol.”

    1. That’s exactly what Bernie is. Otherwise, why does he have how many houses? Why isn’t he giving away all his money except what he needs for he and his wife to live? He likes to play the game, as long as he is the one pulling the strings and getting all the perks. He isn’t one of the “common men” and never will be.

      1. None of the Socialists think they are among the peasants needing uplifting. They all envision themselves as one of the glorious overlords handing out favors.

        1. The revolutionary cadre that will lead the vanguard of the proletariat… *akpaTHOOY* I’ve read too much Marx and Lenin.

        2. The ones I know mainly expect to be receiving and not having to work so hard. Because capitalism is so evil and socialism will have less bureaucracy and plenty for all and prioritize — simultaneously — protecting the environment and making sure all individuals have their unique needs met, including for rest.

          Yeahhh, I don’t buy it either. Although to do justice, I do believe one of them would genuinely hold up the “from each” side of the equation because they work their tail off in both paid and unpaid arenas.

      2. Socialists never give away their own money – they pursue a strategy of giving away other people’s money.

        They need their own resources intact (and growing) to continue their good fight, doncha know.

        1. Interesting comparison to consider. We know in the “put your own money where your mouth is” campaign money between old Ms Clinton & President Trump, Ms Clinton lost hands down.

          Per the main stream news President Trump was essentially trying to “buy” the presidency, a n d, he was throwing good money after bad (well until he won … then they shut up about that, then it was the deplorable’s fault for funding him). Personally I took the tact that hey he actually believes in what he could do, he is not a dummy.

          What about between Bernie Sanders VS President Trump. Any bets on good old Bernie?


          Me? I have no idea. But sure not putting any of my hard earned cash on Bernie.

          1. Dear Socialists,

            Until you are willing to prove your faith in your system by a pilot demonstration project where you use your own money for it, there will be no buy-in by anyone with a functioning brain.



        2. I have literally seen a post from a woman OUTRAGED that the churches in her neck of the UK are collecting food for the poor. Can only happen if the Leviathan is criminally derelict.

    2. And if you point out that all those things have been tried, by people much like us, and have all not just failed but crashed and burned, they tend to stare at you as if you had tarantulas tap-dancing on your eyebrows.

      The Socialists had most of the 20th Century to produce a Socialist Society that worked. Along the way Socialist regimes murdered upwards of 100,000,000 of their own people. The few ‘success’ stories they can point to are staggering NOW.

      1. The Puritans in Massachusetts couldn’t get socialism to work. Originally all of the food production was supposed to be communal with it shared equally no matter how much each one grew. Naturally, no one wanted to grow much of anything, figuring their neighbors would do it and the quite natural consequence is they all were starving. It wasn’t until they switched to good ol’ capitalism, where the people got to keep what they grew and sell the excess, that they stopped starving.
        The track record of socialism’s failures go back well before the twentieth centuries.

        1. The Puritans in Massachusetts

          Minor nit, it was the Pilgrims in Massachusetts who attempted “communal” living. They ended it after their first disastrous year.

          1. But weren’t the Pilgrim’s Puritans, which is why the had fled to the New World to begin with, to escape religious persecution for being Puritans?

            1. Different groups.

              The Pilgrims arrived first and the Puritans arrived later.

              There were some similarities but they were different groups.

            2. No. The Puritans wanted to keep the Anglican church, they just wanted to “purify” it of Roman Catholic influence, hence the name.
              The Pilgrims rejected the Anglican church altogether.

              1. That was the original difference but the Puritans who moved to America had given up on “purifying” the Church of England.

                Mind you, the Pilgrims came before the Puritans.

    3. Oh the free college will not be Ivy, they will be state institutions.  In time the overwhelmed state schools will just become an extension of the public schools — occasionally surprisingly good or tragically bad, but mostly mediocre.   And that free health care will take on similar characteristics.  And the living wage will prove a chimera (‘a thing that is hoped or wished for but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve’), but the chase will continue until it burns itself out.

      But, for the moment, it will be enough to assuage the guilt of those who are doing well and can afford other choices — who believe in government of the best and brightest (like themselves) and prefer a religion free outsourcing of their charitable impulses.

      1. whats funny is they aren’t calling for ‘free hea;lth care’ they are calling for ‘medicare for all’…

        apparently, none of the people proposing that any idea how hilariously bad medicare can be.

        1. No, the people don’t. If they did would so many jump on that band wagon?

          Don’t get me wrong, I am sure some the politicians who are touting it do know and don’t care; they are just posturing to get the votes it will bring in.

    4. He’s one of the Nomenklatura. He’s already further along on the Road to The Future, closer to being the New Soviet Man, so all the rhetoric doesn’t apply to him.

  3. While I agree completely with your larger argument, allow me to nitpick your dismissal of Sanders’ self-description as an “independent.” It may not be easy to recall, but in my own lifetime, the political parties existed without strong ideological correlation. There were liberal Republicans–ranging from cold-warriors like Nelson Rockefeller to out-and-out peaceniks like, well, John Lindsay; and similarly, there were conservative Democrats–mostly but not exclusively in the South, like James Allen of Alabama. Indeed, there were more similarities between the overall ideological positions of Governor Rockefeller and–say–Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington State, than they shared with many in their own respective parties!

    Now of course, the national parties had their own identities, but they needed to keep the broad tent standing, and they knew they needed more than one tent-pole to do so. I should also point out that for the first twenty years of the post-WW2 era, there was a broad bipartisan consensus across a broad range of issues, foreign and domestic: both parties were internationalist, committed to a liberal world order and largely focused on containing the Communist bloc; and both parties were on more or less the same page on what we nowadays call “the social issues:” pro-family, pro-church, and dubious of the power of government to reform the culture.

    As well, both parties were committed to a strong role for the government in the economy: we forget that in those days we had what amounted to a cartelized economy in many sectors–commercial aviation, banking, manufacturing and others–alongside a tax system whose top rate was an eye-watering 93 percent. The main difference was that the Democrats wanted to make this stuff happen immediately, and the Republicans wanted to act more slowly and tentatively, so as not to over-commit to a poor solution. As the joke used to be among conservatives when I was a lad, if the Democrats introduced a bill to abolish private property the next day, the Republicans would respond with a five-year phaseout program!

    And–yes!–there were independents in both the House and the Senate–to say nothing of the state level. I myself had the great joy and honor of being represented for six glorious years by Senator James Buckley, of the New York Conservative Party, who, running on the Conservative Party’s line on the ballot, had–in a three-way race–defeated both the Democrat, Congressman James Ottinger, and the incumbent Republican, Charles Goodell, whom Governor Rockefeller had appointed to the seat after Senator Robert Kennedy was killed.

    And when I moved to Virginia in the early 1980s, I was briefly represented by a former Democrat, Senator Harry Byrd (not to be confused with Robert Byrd of West Virginia!) who had lost the Democratic nomination but stayed in the race as an independent.

    James Buckley wrote that he had jokingly suggested that he and Byrd form a Conservative Caucus and sit apart from the two major parties, but Byrd turned him down, preferring to caucus with his ancestral party, the Democrats.

    Anyhow…a small point, but one that I think is worth bringing up, especially as no one under the age of 40 has any personal recollection of the era when parties and ideologies were not nearly so tightly coupled as they are nowadays.

    1. I think you’d find a lot of assumptions exploded if you studied the past in detail. THIS might have been your perception, and distance dresses things in different faces — but even from abroad I could tell what you recall “weren’t so.” And if you study the DETAILED history? Oh, heck, no.

      1. What, in particular, are you disagreeing with? I wonder because this also sounds a bit like my recollections. There was always a whole lot of party-line bombastics but there were also elected persons who were known to go their own way or at the very least would not be counted upon to fall in line.

        Certainly each party had a wider range of opinions on abortion and gun control and it was completely ordinary to have a pro-gun/anti-abortion Democrat and an anti-gun/pro-abortion Republican.

        My own movement into libertarianism was partly due to the fact that I was trying to figure out how the main parties were different and getting no good answers beyond the libertarian one about “the Democrats and their clones the Republicans.”

        1. The idea that the two parties were more similar.
          Look, at one time everyone thought the economy had to be controlled SOMEHOW. BUT if you look closely, the dems were always much as they are now. What was done behind doors — FDR, that horror — was always much of what they want to do now, and take us to full socialism. They just didn’t own it.
          Heinlein said the inner councils of the dems were fully communist by the forties. This accords with my reading of history.
          The republicans might have been soft-socialists, but they weren’t taken over by the communists, by damn.

          1. The difference now is the Democrats are much more open about being outright socialist/communist. Look at NYC Mayor DeBlasio said that he thinks the greatest problem in America is the existence of private property and protection of property rights. That is nothing less than a statement in support of full-fledged Soviet style communism. Of course given that DeBlasio visited 1980’s Nicaragua and loves the communist Sandanistas and said that the thinks the Sandanista are a good role model to follow for the USA. is it any surprise that he loves communism.

    2. “if the Democrats introduced a bill to abolish private property the next day, the Republicans would respond with a five-year phaseout program!”

      Which is why the Republicans, for all their warts, adhere more closely to the concepts the Founders tried to design the Constitution to enforce, that of a limited government. Granted, even they don’t do that great a job; but they’re less destructive, and slower at it, than the progressive others.

    3. I vaguely remember meeting James Buckley in the early ’70s at one of my grandfather’s Masonic picnic parties as a teenager.

      Hey. Maybe I should form a new political organization called, “The Picnic Party”. Platform will be: No taxes; if you want something done, bring your own money.

        1. Sure. That’s why everyone’s drinking their lemonade and sweet tea out of Mason jars… *gallops off to dive under the bed*

          1. *Throws a carp at the kitty under the bed*
            Munch on that, fuzz butt.

            That’s what they do in ‘public’. Bunch of old guys and their families. Eat good food, discuss/plan how to make the world a better place. From my exposure, there does/did seem to be a disturbing tendency toward a preference in a totalitarian form of government within that Masonic circle. I don’t think they see that while there are efficiencies of centralization, they often don’t last, and fixing them afterwards becomes even harder than they would have been in a more distributed or chaotic system. They REALLY don’t understand Pournelle’s Iron Law; or they think it wouldn’t apply to them.

            1. I don’t know what Masons you’ve been hanging out with, but that’s not been my experience. Maybe it has something to do with the ‘Southern jurisdiction’.

              1. Nor mine. The Masons I’ve known have been little different from the rest of the population…aside from having more integrity and honor than most.

            1. Um, our need to fund hospitals and buy kids hearing implants and fund scholarships and feed people . . .

              If you don’t know Masons, look up charities. From big, internationally known charities like Shriners’ Hospitals to my sons’ DeMolay Chapter bringing us by all the fixings for Thanksgiving and Christmas Dinners while my husband was out of work last year.

              Oh, and historically, the US Government form is strongly based on the Masons. Right down to the executive stepping down after his term and returning to ordinary citizenship.

              I am an Eastern Star.

              1. Well, yes, they do support a lot of charities too. Although I have seen an instance where even the Shriners were acting in a predatory fashion with a wealthy and somewhat mentally handicapped elderly woman donor.

                  1. In this case, I presume the “Carmen” is the oen of the opera. As to if your mother has a boogie, I do not know. Nor do I know if she has a woogie. And I refuse to speculate on the possibility (or lack thereof) of her having a bugle boy. Nor would I be so crass as to insinuate that she only keeps “B” company.

              2. Grew up in the culture. Was in Job’s & started in Eastern Star but didn’t stay. Grandma wasn’t happy but she set it up so I can go back any time (not my thing. I think I’ve stated more than once I lack social sense). Mom still participates in Eastern Star, & two or 3 small Shriner charities ran by the women. Oregon East / West Shriner game is a big deal. Helped dad do the participants certificates for 20 years after his stroke. Mom continued it for him for the next 5 years after his death. The templates were copied on to CD’s so anyone could use them, & daddy passed them out to other Shriner’s locally & abroad, but don’t know if anyone uses them.

                1. Late in his life, Kipling wrote two (or is it three?) stories about a Masonic Lodge in London, one of which is among his funniest stories; THE JANEITES.

                  Just tangentially.

        1. How about the Potlach Party? just so long as you are distributiing your *own* stuff instead of trying to make everybody else pay for it . . .

          1. Gods! If the Liberal/Progressive/Hippy-dippy dipsticks would spend one half the energy and treasure they pour into making other people do it their way into, say, educating the educatible poor, or feeding the genuinely hungry, or finding effective treatment for the street-ferals, they could achieve wonders.

            But while they may TALK about that kind of thing, most of them simply want to make us all do it their way.

            Or take animal extinctions. There’s a man in South Africa (if his government hasn’t hanged him by the heels yet) who has proven that you can farm rhinos, and harvest their horns (so they aren’t attractive to poachers. Widely adopted, his method could bring them back from the brink. And the Enviroweenies HATE the idea. He isn’t doing it their way, which is to expend enormous amounts of time and energy and treasure that no Sub-Saharan Nation can afford to (fail to) protect the animals in their natural habitat.


            1. I have long said that the solution to (a lot of) the endangered species problem is to have someone OWN them, and have a financial stake in increasing their numbers.

              When a poacher kills a rhino or elephant. Often, the villagers look the other way (if the don’t actively help the poacher) because they are big animals that knock down fences and eat crops. AND, the villagers see no benefit to keeping them around. Sure, white liberal suburbanites thousands of miles away in America love that those rhinos and elephants are wild and free, but that doesn’t replace the crops that just got trampled and eaten.

              On the other hand, if someone were allowed to “farm” the rhinos, they would have a stake in keeping poachers at bay and increasing their “Herd” (Herd in quotes, because rhinos aren’t really herd animals… but I grew up around cattle, so that’s the terminology I am familiar with).

    4. You forgot to include Joe Liberman who in 2006 ran and won as an independent when he lost the Democrat party renomination to Ned Lamont.

      Your analysis fails to recognize the amount of regionalism in the parties that has long been characteristic.  A political science professor of mine observed that the candidates from the parties for the same seat where more alike that were candidates in the same party when one was from a large metropolitan manufacturing area and the other a rural agricultural area. 

      I encountered this when, on hearing I was from Philadelphia, I was asked by a supporter of Rep. Newt Gingrich how Sen. Arlen Specter could be part of the Republican party?  The answer was simple, for the city of Philadelphia that was a Republican.    

      (Mind you this was before Sen. Specter switched back to the Democratic party in 2009.  He had an opportunist streak.  If I had known that it would happen, while it would have made me think a moment, it would not have ultimately changed my answer.  For the city of Philadelphia that was a Republican.)

      1. Lieberman lost the Democratic Party nomination (only a short time after being the party’s national VP nominee) because at that point he was considered not far left enough; basically because he supported a strong national defense and the idea of national sovereignty, and wasn’t vocally committed to pushing full-fledged socialism. His ouster as party representative can be seen as one of the early indicia of the Democratic Party’s dropping the mask and openly embracing and pushing full socialism, open borders, etc.

    5. The party elites in both parties during that time after WWII before Reagan believed in eventual world domination by the Russians. They believed anything we did was simply delaying the inevitable victory of Communism. Reagan kind of blew that belief up. My view, stated before and repeated now- Democrats are and always have been the party of group rights. Republicans are and have been the party of individual rights. The two views are not compatible. And individual rights are enshrined in our Constitution.

      Trump is an American Firster. He was born here, he lives here, he’s been successful here, he likes it here. Which is why MAGA resonates with his supporters. He demonstrates he believes it. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a single Democrat on the national stage who has expressed pride in America. Nothing but criticism for the deplorables, for our sexism, our racism, our imperfections real or perceived- but nothing good. They have to lead us to goodness…

      1. Many including Truman, Eisenhower,  Richard Nixon, John Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy did not think that it was inevitable that the communists would take dominate the world. 

        Bobby had worked for Senator Joe McCarthy when he first got out of law school, although he did distance himself when it became apparent that the Senator was loosing it with the public.   

        Another thing people tend to forget, JFK and Nixon had been close friends.

        1. I feel I must object to including (even by inference) Joe McCarthy in a list of legitimate Anti-Communists. Everything I have read about the man inclines me to believe that he was a bandwagon-jumper; if the popular cause had bee the legalization of cannibalism, he would have gone for THAT.

          And he is so useful to the Pinkos, one might be excused if one wondered if he were a plant. All they have had to do, for far too long after his death, to avoid actually having to answer any embarrassing questions, is invoke the word “McCarthyism”.

          1. Perhaps read McCarthy and his Enemies (Buckley and Bozwell), and Treason (Coulter). McCarthy was amazingly accurate in his accusations, we now now thanks to the Verona Files. And if you actually read his history, he was a pretty stand up guy. Yes, there have been a lot of lies written about McCarthy, but the truth is out there if you care to look.

            1. McCarthy’s history proves it is not enough to be correct on a subject. Sadly as he lost his grip on his crusade he also, according to many, descended into the grips of alcohol. It didn’t help.

  4. What he is; a glib-talking parasite who adores the sound of his own voice, and never had a regular job until he suckered enough people into voting him into office. And I don’t think Mrs. Bernie is any better – she, after all, ran a small liberal arts private college into the ground, and skipped out before the crash with a nice golden parachute.

  5. ” The DNC knows if it should drop the mask completely, it will lose the moderates in the party and that is the last thing it wants to do, at least not yet.”

    WHAT?????!!!!! There are moderates in the Dem party???? I thought all those had been PURGED.

    1. Not in the Party Establishment, and indications are that the voters who consider themselves moderate Democrats are sick to the teeth of the Usual Suspects.

      We’ll see.

      1. My experience with “moderate Democrats” (a few friends) is that they are too distracted by how much they hate them some Trumps to realize just how far Left the Democrat party has slipped. Although, I’m sure they think I’m too distracted by whatever my deal is to notice how much of a horrible traitor Trump is. Which is funny, since I never wanted Trump to be President in the first place and don’t like the way he acts. HOWEVER, I have to say, I’m a BIG fan of the Tax cut, slashed regulations, and his nominations for SCOTUS (I’m not so happy about the tariffs, but I admit that I don’t really know enough about that to have a well-considered opinion), So yea… I’m not very dedicated to my dislike of the Trump.

      1. Hey! Can we at least keep the Shedd Aquarium and the museums? OK, the modern art one can go, but the Field and the Old Masters at the Art Institute of Chicago? The Museum of Science and Industry’s kinda fun too, or so a friend from that area tells me.

        1. I used to go to MoS&I frequently as a kid, along with the Adler Planetarium. Last time I visited relatives, though, the neighborhood around the Museum was getting too iffy for my rural-acclimated taste.

    1. They had a chance of sorts in the 40s. U of Chicago would have hosted the glowing hole in the ground. 🙂 OTOH, WW-II would have had a rather different conclusion.

      1. David Horowitz, in his explaination of how he came to leave the Radical Left, tells of his experiences writing THE FORDS, AN AMERICAN EPIC, with special attention to how the Ford Foundation, which the Fords had intended to be mild-conservative was taken over by the Establishment Left.

        There have been cases (more than one, but not many) of families suing colleges for using bequests earmarked for special purposes for just about any hairbrained Leftist cause that came bouncing down the pike.

        Naturally, the Establishment Media payed this zero attention.

  6. Like Margaret Thatcher said, “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”

    Well, my money is MY money. Granted, I draw a military pension. Only had to risk the chance of being bombed, gassed, or shot for 22 years. Some might call that a government benefits program. Ain’t no benefit. I call it reduced deferred compensation for services rendered. I’ll also be eligible for social security in a few years. Also called by some, a government benefits program. Well, unlike many guzzling from that trough, I have the virtue of having paid the maximum amount into it for decades. However, I would have gotten 150% to 250% better return by investing it myself. Heh. Some people would say, “Yeah, but social security is risk free.” Dolts. The risk isn’t from market forces. The risk in social security is from the stroke of a pen by those scalawags elected or appointed to government positions, and their hired henchmen in civil service or their own office support.

    1. There’s still money! Don’t you dare say there isn’t any more money!

      (orders police to tear open sofas for loose change, confiscate money jars from lemonade stands)

      1. Alas, they (almost invariably members of the Democrat Party) really are confiscating money jars from lemonade stands, and prosecuting the little tykes for their entrepreneurial spirit.

          1. I shudder to think of Captain John Paul Jones as a Democrat in today’s world would have declared.

    2. Social Security cash flow went negative a few years back. Meaning they now are required to pay out more than they take in every year. No problem, just go to the Social Security lock box every politician talks about and dip in to make up the difference. One little problem, the box doesn’t have a penny of real money in it, just Treasury bills backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. In other words IOUs for the money that our government took and spend on really important stuff.
      But payments must be made, so they cash in some of those T-bills, exchanging them for current revenue coming in from any variety of sources, mostly withholding payments from our paychecks.
      Were anyone to set up a scheme identical to Social Security in the private sector those responsible would be arrested, almost certainly convicted, and serve time in Federal prisons. For historical reference study up on a little something called a Ponzi scheme.

      1. There is considerable evidence to suggest that FDR whomped together Social Security largely to get the people it would be paying out to out of the job markey, so his emplyment numbers wouldn’t look so awful.

        Oh, he was a Socialist rat bastard, but he also was scrambling to ‘Do Something’ about The Depression. That’s what he had been elected to do.

        Political amd economic theorists who assert that he could have waited it out, amd the exonomy would have come back sooner somehow fail to account for the obvious fact that had he NOT been seen to be Doing Something (whether it worked or not) he would likely have been a one term President…and been replaced by some other schmuckwho would ‘Do Something’.

        1. When you really go through the Alphabet Agencies and the early New Deal, there were a whole lot of people who had Grand Plans. FDR seems to have said, “OK, throw ’em all at the wall and we’ll see what sticks.” Thus you have one agency paying people to leave the High Plains and relocate, and another agency paying the same people to stay and develop soil conservation techniques. At the same time.

          1. One of the largest regional artifacts of the New Deal lies just a few miles away from me. Greenhills, OH was one of three towns built by the Resettlement Administration’s Greenbelt towns program before Congress put the kibosh on it. One of the reasons? Conservatives in both parties objected to the program’s directive to organize businesses in the new towns as cooperatives rather than regular private businesses. This included the original tenants of what was purportedly Ohio’s first strip-mall, complete with its oddly-laid-out parking lot. Another of the reasons appears to have been opposition to funding government-sponsored competition to the private sector.

          2. Exactly; FDR was an opportunist who knew goddamned well what would happen if the public didn’t perceive him to be ‘doing something’. It didn’t have to WORK (although it would be nice if it did). And since nobody really knew what to do (other than let the usual business cycle continue on, and that had been rejected by the voters) he tried a lot of things, all at once.

          1. Apparently FDR tried many of the stuff that Hoover tried but IMO his real strength was his “fireside chats” where he convinced many Americans that he shared their concerns.

            Preparing for WW2 likely did more to end the Great Depression than anything FDR actually did.

            But yes, IMO his “fireside chats” helped prevent somebody worse from gaining power.

      2. They robbed Peter to pay Paul, and after Peter was completely destitute because everything had been robbed, they forced Peter to write checks on an empty bank account and told Paul that when he goes to cash the checks, through some magic pixie dust, the checks will somehow clear.

  7. Politicians like Bernie Sanders are the reason I support senate/congressional term limits, followed by a mandatory six months of working at a fast food joint to bring them back down to earth (alright, that last part about the fast food employment may or may not be a joke).

    1. I heard a poli-sci prof saying that term limits would make the bureaucracy nearly unstoppable. Doesn’t change my mind, but it was an interesting argument.

      1. Cali(spit!)fornia has had term limits for a while. Saint Moonbeam got around it, since his first 8 years of misrule were before the limits were voted in. Once he could get a new crop of voters to bamboozle, he was set for another 8.

        As best as I can tell, with a one-party state, term limits are close to meaningless. The machine just finds another critter to continue the Great March Forward using the same template. With the Bi-Partisian Fusion Party, it’s not terribly likely to get better. OTOH, if enough of the BPFP get kicked out of office, maybe it could work. One can dream. I do like the fast food idea, or cleaning toilets.

      2. The fix for Term limits would be to require the Bureaucrats to leave with whoever appointed them…

      3. I’ve never heard the bureaucracy argument before. One could make the counter argument that the bureaucracy is already out-of-control.

        My worry about term limits has always been that the continual need to push candidates through the system will create party machines that’ll make Tammany Hall look like a church social.

        1. Really? It’s one of the major issues – senior bureaucrats being consistently able to run circles around their elected superiors, since the elected superiors don’t have nearly the same experience in their jobs..

          1. Civil service was created to take politics out of the bureaucracy. The experiment is now obviously a failure. Solution- all civilian employees serve at the pleasure of the Chief Executive. Most employees will start to keep their head down in order to survive administration changes.

            As of now, the Clintons had to invent crimes to fire the White House Travel Office and bring in their own people. It would have been less cruel to simply fire them just because they could bring in their own people.

          1. Both of your arguments support the idea that the bureaucracy is already out-of-control.

            1. Agree.

              However, term-limits for elected positions would make it harder to get it under control.

        2. I suspect term limits for the bureaucrats are more needed than for the elected creatures. Those can be recalled, voted out, etc. however unlikely it might seem even sans limits. The bureaucrats? Just hang on and on and on. I like the idea that, with perhaps a few very specific and special exceptions (though it might be late for Constitutional call-outs on such, alas) that there be NO such thing as lifetime/career* gov’t work.

          * Exemption for military career, but it must BE military, not “military” and that might be (yet another) difficult one to set up properly.

    2. I have long maintained that the world would be a better and kinder place if everyone did at least a little time in food service. For graduate credit work for a while as a bartender. Gives one a whole new perspective on the human condition.

      1. I’m going to respectfully disagree with the bartending. They wield too much power in the restaurant heirarchy. You gotta be low on the totem pole to really be affected by the wrath and kindness of humans.

        Prime example: Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who moonlights as a bartender at a cushy restaurant to supplement her already cushy day job as an Education Director. She clearly hasn’t learned squat about people or money from slinging shots and beer.

        1. Sounds like (according to news reports) she did learn about swiping tip money from other servers.

            1. As best as I could find, it was in pagesix dot com:


              The key bit:

              At the end of the night, when it came time to split the $560 in tips she had gotten at the bar, Ocasio-Cortez gave the waitress only $50. After the waitress complained to her manager, her take was doubled to $100, a source said.

              “It says so much about her character,” said my source. “From that point on, I wouldn’t talk to her. I couldn’t look at her.”

              1. Hm. That’s interesting. If what this waitress says is true and corroborated by others, it just proves that Ocasio-Cortez is a true little socialist after all.

        2. Waitstaff is where the learning is.
          Busperson means hard work, but not as much customer service, and no tip incentives for better performance.

    3. What the pluperfect hell do you have against fast food customers? The stuff’s bad enough as it is without onjecting the lokes of Congresscritters into the cooking process!

      1. I don’t know what else they might do, but it is understanding that dealing old grease in need of replacement might be a suitable start for such creatures. I’ve heard of at least one place where the on-time rate was held up by the simple of expedient of “He who is late, has volunteered to deal with the grease.” After that (maybe more than once?) it was either on-time or gone.

    4. I would be more prone to a year of “open a new small business and live exclusively off of the profits.”

      Survivors might be considered eligible to stand for election again (after a thorough IRS proctoscopy, of course).

  8. “Like Thomas the Tank Engine from Hell”

    Damn it, Sarah! I damn near choked to death to keep myself from laughing. My coworkers can’t know I read your blog!

  9. After all, if the DNC hadn’t worked so hard to torpedo his run, something he supposedly had no idea about until after it happened, …

    Right under his nose and he wasn’t aware of it?  Is obliviousness really a characteristic desirable in a President?

    1. Remember that he insisted during a debate with Hillary that too time and energy had been spent talking about Hillary’s e-mails.

      1. He also had to make a hard turn around after the back lash when he made his comment about ‘all lives matter.’

        1. Bernie (or his handlers) may have concluded that if anyone was to have any success as an alternative Democrat nominee they could leave the attacking of Hillary to the many Republican candidates.   He didn’t want to get caught in that mire.  Then he could present himself as different kind of politician, clean of back biting, and thus appealing to potential voters who are complaining that all politicians are dirty.

  10. With no money, no organization and no idea what the hell he was doing, he was now running for office – and not for local office but for the United States Senate.

    It was 1971.  They were in Vermont.  He ran as the Liberty Union Party candidate.  All three factors add up to explain how it could have happened.  We are not talking about a party that had a strong understanding of American political realities.  Vermont has a tradition of town meetings.  And it was 1971

    1. While I was rather young in the 1970’s, I recall enough of them that while there were a few higher points, I have zero desire to re-live that decade… which was sort of the hangover from the 1960’s.

      1. I have heard the 1970s described as the decade that taste forgot.
        After spending most of my childhood during the 70s, I realized how true that is.
        And it really seems like the 1960s and 70s were, in some ways, just one long 20 year decade.

        1. The 60s flowed into the 70s, at least until 1979. A lot of the environmental, save the whales stuff is really 1970s, not so much 1960s hippies.

          1. Lived through them both and have little if any feeling of nostalgia for either. They were off kilter at the time and have not improved in the rear view mirror.

            1. The fact that polyester somehow became the fabric of choice for clothing tells one exactly how bad that decade was.

  11. I will give credit to Bernie for cracking the facade of the Democratic party. The old Democrats were good at running on the right, then governing from the left. Bernie’s success has convinced a fair number of politicians that the kids are really into that radical Leftism, so we see candidates running as radical Leftist. I hope this translates into big losses this November, but we’ll see.

Comments are closed.