Tag - Bernie Sanders
During last night’s CNN debate on taxes, which pitted Republican senators Tim Scott and Ted Cruz against Democrat senators Bernie Sanders and Maria Cantwell, the former were more prepared and sharp on the discussion of taxes compared to the latter.
Senators Cruz and Sanders previously clashed during a CNN debate on Obamacare this past February, which actually proved to be very substantive. This go-around, the Texas Senator launched a Cruz missile nuking Sanders’ claim that millionaires and billionaires don’t pay enough in taxes —to which Cruz responded that there aren’t enough millionaires and billionaires to cover socialistic policies if they are implemented. Cruz, a son of a Cuban political refuge, apparently got on avowed socialist Sanders’ nerves when he probed the Vermont senator’s position.
Watch the exchange below:
This wasn’t the only zinger from last night’s debate. Cruz pressed his colleague from Washington State on what the difference between Democrats and socialists is with respect to taxes, which she took serious offense to. Cantwell called Cruz’s comments on Democrats “divisive.” Below is the full exchange:
TED CRUZ: Now, Bernie and I have done three of these debates. I like debating Bernie because he’s honest, he’s candid. He is a socialist. He admits he’s a socialist. He wants to raise everyone’s taxes. And so, Maria, I’d like to actually ask you a question that I asked Bernie last time, which is — since this is a tax debate, what is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist on taxes? CANTWELL: Well, you know, Ted, I really thought about this issue of you trying to divide the Democrats. But, you know, we’re a big-tent party. And there’s room for Bernie and there’s room for me. The difference is you guys keep trying to isolate your party. It used to be there was everywhere from Susan Collins to Jeff Sessions. But instead, you guys took on people like Dick Lugar. And guess what? We got Joe Donnelly. And then you put somebody out there in Missouri, and we got Claire McCaskill. So you keep narrowing your tent, and I’m fine with our big tent. And so the issue here — and I have two small-business people here from Seattle, a millennial, Michael, who’s asked me what are we doing about the housing crisis, am I ever going to get out of my parents’ basement and own my own home? And he’s working hard in a sector that this bill is making harder for him to make his company competitive. And so the issue here — and I have two small-business people here from Seattle, a millennial, Michael, who’s asked me what are we doing about the housing crisis, am I ever going to get out of my parents’ basement and own my own home? And he’s working hard in a sector that this bill is making harder for him to make his company competitive. And another businessman, Joe, who says what are you doing to our economy if you’re giving the big corporations a huge tax break and you’re only giving us a smaller tax break? He’s the job creator. He created jobs in the downturn of our economy and did so successfully. I want to make sure they are getting a fair deal.
Senator Cruz continues to display policy prowess throughout these exchanges. Perhaps more Republican senators could learn from him.
Donna Brazile, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, called Hillary Clinton staffers who criticized her take on the 2016 campaign out of touch. Brazile, appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” defended her claims that Clinton control of the DNC tied the group’s hands and made it difficult for the group to be involved in the campaign, but denied that the primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders.
“Here’s what they don’t know. What it was like to be over at the DNC during the hacking. What it’s like to bury a child. I did, Seth Rich. They don’t know what it’s like to protect a staff from further harassment,” Brazile said.
“They don’t know what it’s like because they’re — the high command of Brooklyn,” Brazile added. “The people making the decisions, even for the DNC, they didn’t come and work with us. They told us to shut up. And basically let them win the election. When we tried to intervene, we had to spend money we raised to try to help them win. That was my job as chair of the party.”
In a racially charged comment rarely applied to fellow Democrats, Brazile also said that she had to tell the Clinton campaign that she was no slave. “Yeah, I’m not Patsy the slave because I got sick and tired of people trying to tell me how the spend the money,” Brazile said. “I wasn’t getting a salary. I was volunteering my time. I was trying to increase the level of enthusiasm and passion for Hillary Clinton and the rest of the ticket across the country.”
In other comments, Brazile denied that the Democratic primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders. “I said I would get to the bottom of everything, and that’s what I did,” Brazile said. “I called Senator Sanders to say, you know, I wanted to make sure there was no rigging of the process … I found no evidence, none whatsoever.”
“The thing, the only thing, I found — which I said, ‘I found the cancer, but I’m not killing the patient’ — was this memorandum that prevented the DNC from running its own operation,” she added.
Brazile’s claim that Hillary Clinton colluded with DNC long before Clinton won the Democratic nomination is ethically questionable, but falls short of actually rigging the election. In Brazile’s version of events, she discovered the Clintonian control of the DNC after the convention in July. Per Brazile, Bernie Sanders agreed to campaign for Clinton even after he was told of the party’s duplicity.
In spite of the result of the election, Brazile stands by her actions. “Do I regret taking on a job the second time in my life as chair of the party? Cleaning up everyone’s mess? Taking all of the income in? Being unable to spend funds that I raised? Do I regret being on the road 100 percent of the time? Being hacked by the Russians? Being — being harassed, getting death threats? Do I regret any of that?” she asked rhetorically.
“Do I regret standing up for what is right? Helping Hillary Clinton? Helping the Democratic Party? … No, I wish I could have done more.”
An excerpt from Donna Brazile’s soon to be released book “Hacks – The Inside Story of Break-Ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House” garnered a huge amount of attention this week. To say it came as a surprise to Democrats is an understatement, with the Bernie supporters saying “I told you so!” and the centrist Clinton Democrats shrugging with “This is in the past, nothing to see here, lets move on.”
This short excerpt has been dissected seemingly from every angle; however there might be a couple of take-aways worth discussion. But it is instructive to briefly recap Ms. Brazile’s background. A native of New Orleans, and an early 80s Poly-Sci major from LSU, Donna began in politics right after college. She was an advisor to both Bill Clinton presidential campaigns, and was the campaign manager for Al Gore’s presidential campaign. She was the interim DNC Chairwoman following the ouster of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and has been described in the 2002 book Gay and Lesbian Americans and Political Participation: A Reference Handbook as “openly lesbian”.
Suffice it to say, Ms. Brazile is a party loyalist and insider at the very top levels. Which is what makes all of this so startling. The three observations which cannot be ignored are:
- Hillary Clinton has been put out to pasture. The party is moving on, and the Clinton family isn’t invited.
- Donna has set herself up as the moral compass for the Democratic Party and as the bridge to the minority south.
- Perhaps most importantly, the Bernie Sander’s progressive Socialist Neo-Left is on the ascendency, and is THE force to reckon with.
Don’t underestimate the third point. Ms. Brazile has made her living as a southern centrist. When she speaks, people listen, and she has always understood the pulse of the party, and where it is headed.
The discussions about the civil war within the Democratic Party will continue. Obama, Perez and the Clintons’ will continue to attempt to exert control, but in realty for the immediate future, this fight is over. Obama left the party so decimated it has nobody in the wings with the gravitas to combat the Neo-Progressive’s inexorable rise.
This leaves the DNC as a shell of it’s former self, in debt and out of favor. Congressional democrats are in the minority, and almost every pundit predicts this will remain the case for a decade or so.
Putting it bluntly, the Democratic Party is a spent force, with power on each coast, and in a few urban cities. They are fixated on “identity politics” with no inclination to even begin an internal discussion on policy.
This is the culmination of seven decades of rule, each decade becoming increasingly liberal. The result? A Socialist-Democratic Party, armed with a violent military “Antifa”, bleeding labor support at an alarming rate, and increasingly losing at the federal level.
For all of their problems, these Neo-Socialist cannot be taken for granted. The truth is foreign to them, American exceptionalism and patriotism is an anathema to them, and the “ends will always justify the means”.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders headlined a Democratic fundraiser on Sunday and delivered his same old spiel to a liberal audience.
During a speech at the Strafford County Democratic Committee fundraising dinner, Sanders was able to wow attendees with a wish list of amazing policy items such as: a $15 minimum wage, tuition-free college for everyone, his “Medicare for All” bill and other impractical goodies that sound great to people who don’t wonder how it gets paid for. The 45-minute speech was sprinkled with several standing ovations.
Sanders also made one other thing clear as he addressed the room full of Democrats: he won’t be running as a member of their party next year.
The Vermont senator, who identifies as a democratic socialist, serves the upper chamber as an Independent, although he has caucused with Democrats since his arrival to Congress. The admirer of Eugene Debs will run for a third term next year and many Democratic leaders were hoping he would finally make the official move to the Democrat Party.
Those people were left disappointed Sunday.
“I am an independent and I have always run in Vermont as an independent, while I caucus with the Democrats in the United States Senate. That’s what I’ve been doing for a long time and that’s what I’ll continue to do,” Sanders stated in an interview.
— Paul Steinhauser (@steinhauserNH1) October 23, 2017
Sanders, of course, made a monumental splash into Democratic politics during the 2016 election. Giving Hillary Clinton a run for her money, the lover of the nanny state amassed a huge following of supporters while running for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Although he ultimately lost to Clinton, he walked away a superstar in a party he still refuses to call home.
The location of the event on Sunday was also telling. The Strafford County Democratic fundraiser is located in New Hampshire — his home state’s next door neighbor and the first-in-the-nation presidential primary state. It was his second visit to New Hampshire in under two months.
Despite being 76 years old, many are keeping an eye on Bernie’s next moves as Democrats are already maneuvering into 2020 campaign mode. Before he can even move to this phase, however, the Independent senator must first win re-election next year — which shouldn’t be hard given his popularity in the state.
Nearly dethroning Clinton during the presidential
coronation nomination gave Bernie many friends, but he’s also amassed quite a few critics, as well. Many Party insiders blame him for Clinton’s eventual loss in the general election to Donald Trump. He’s subsequently faced mounting pressure to officially become a Democrat. Bob Mulholland, a Democratic National Committee member, went so far as to introduce a resolution at the Party’s fall meeting that would have called for Sanders and Sen. Angus King — an Independent from Maine that also caucuses with the Dems — to run as Democrats. Angus also faces re-election next year.
That particular resolution failed a simple majority vote, so Sanders and King don’t have to sweat over actually having to call themselves Democrats just yet.
As Sanders keeps the door open for another go at the White House, it’s amazing he still refuses to identify as a member of the party he’s caucused for years with.
He’s OK with getting the Democrat’s nomination for the presidency, but don’t you dare call him a Democrat.
Politics makes strange bedfellows. Bernie Sanders is opposed to Russ Vought as the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget because Vought is a practicing Christian. Sanders’ entire objection to Vought centers on a piece Vought wrote here at the Resurgent defending his alma mater, Wheaton, for standing firm for the faith.
Sanders, in Vought’s confirmation hearing, attacked Vought for being a Christian and writing in defense of Christian values.
So that makes it even more disappointing that it is not Sanders tying up Vought’s confirmation, but John Cornyn of Texas. Vought is a conservative’s conservative and Cornyn is stopping him from being able to effectively do his job.
John Cornyn wants more money for Texas in the budget. To get that money, he is holding up Russ Vought’s confirmation vote on the floor of the Senate. This is appalling on many levels. First, he is aiding and abetting Bernie Sanders’ persecution of a Christian. Second, he wants to keep a fiscal conservative from helping form the budget until he gets a fat payout for Texas in the budget.
Cornyn claims to be a conservative, but is preventing a real conservative from confirmation. Cornyn claims to be fiscally responsible, but is holding up a fiscally responsible conservative for irresponsible ends.
President Trump promised to drain the swamp and John Cornyn is not only working against the confirmation of personnel equally committed to draining the swamp, but Cornyn is doing it as part of a shake down of American taxpayers. The President needs to show Cornyn who’s boss and use his bully pulpit on this issue. Russ Vought deserves to be confirmed and Cornyn should be ashamed.
In an interview with The Intercept, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) revealed his anti-Israel colors by advocating for the insane policy of ending all aid to the Jewish state.
Unsurprisingly, the interview was the quintessential ramblings of a madman, as Sanders naively endorsed the idea of meeting face-to-face with the murderous Kim Jong Un and embracing the Islamo-Nazi Iranian regime. But his worst comments were regarding Israel:
These days, unlike other members of Congress, Sanders has no qualms about identifying, and decrying, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. But does he accept that the United States is complicit in Israel’s occupation, through its military aid and arms sales? And does he also accept, therefore, that the occupation of the Palestinian territories will never end until the U.S. stops arming and funding the Jewish state?
“Certainly the United States is complicit, but it’s not to say … that Israel is the only party at fault,” he tells me. However, he adds, “in terms of Israeli-Palestinian relations the United States has got to play a much more even-handed role. Clearly that is not the case right now.”
Would he, therefore, ever consider voting to reduce U.S. aid to Israel — worth at least $3bn per annum — or U.S. arms sales to the Israeli military?
“The U.S. funding plays a very important role, and I would love to see people in the Middle East sit down with the United States government and figure out how U.S. aid can bring people together, not just result in an arms war in that area. So I think there is extraordinary potential for the United States to help the Palestinian people rebuild Gaza and other areas. At the same time, demand that Israel, in their own interests in a way, work with other countries on environmental issues.” He then, finally, answers my question: “So the answer is yes.”
It’s one thing to argue that the United States should end aid to Israel in order to prevent administrations that are hostile to the Jewish state from strong-arming the country into actions that would undermine it, or to argue that Israel simply doesn’t need it. Those are understandable positions. But Sanders’ comments are coming from a place of malice toward Israel since he’s embracing the lie that Israel is “occupying” West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
How can Israel be occupying the Gaza Strip when in 2005 they allowed the people of Gaza to have their own democratic elections, which ultimately resulted in the terror group Hamas rising to power? How can Israel be occupying the West Bank – which should be referred to as Judaea and Samaria – when they have a legal right to that land?
Unfortunately, such anti-Israel sentiments are par for the course for the wild-eyed lunatic socialist. For instance, last year Sanders claimed that Israel had killed 10,000 people in Gaza in the 2014 conflict, which is laughably false. Sanders’ campaign featured anti-Israel aides and allies and he is pro-Iran deal.
The fact remains that Israel is a crucial ally to America. The Jewish state is essentially America’s first line of defense in the Middle East against Islamic terror groups. Israel’s enemies are our enemies, which is why they have provided America with important intelligence and “technical know-how in defending against terrorist attacks.” The world, especially America, should be grateful for Israel knocking out Saddam Hussein’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 and Bashar al-Assad’s nuclear reactor that was in the process of being built in 2007.
And yet Sanders thinks that Israel deserves scorn and derision. God help us if he is ever elected president.
In an op-ed for the New York Times, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says that he plans to introduce a bill that would replace private health insurance with Medicare for “every family in America.” Sanders, who bills himself as a democratic socialist, believes that the answer to the Obamacare crisis is more government control of the nation’s healthcare.
Under the Sanders plan, a four-year transition period would move the country from private health insurance to a national single-payer plan. Sanders describes the details of the transition:
“In the first year, benefits to older people would be expanded to include dental care, vision coverage and hearing aids, and the eligibility age for Medicare would be lowered to 55. All children under the age of 18 would also be covered. In the second year, the eligibility age would be lowered to 45 and in the third year to 35. By the fourth year, every man, woman and child in the country would be covered by Medicare for All.”
Sen. John Barasso (R-Wy.) pre-empted many of Sanders’ arguments in a Tuesday op-ed on Fox News. Barasso, a medical doctor, pointed out that single-payer plans in other countries have not worked out well. “The British have found rationing necessary partly because of the exorbitant cost of ‘free’ medical care,” he wrote. Barasso also cited “the shortage of professionals to provide this care” as the number of British doctors, nurses and midwives has dropped in recent years.
While Sanders and others cite poor outcomes of American healthcare, Barasso points out, “The U.K. ranks 20th out of 24 western countries for breast cancer survival. The U.S. is first. For ischemic stroke the U.K. is 25th out of 30 countries. The U.S. is fourth.”
While Sanders’ proposal will be a nonstarter in the Republican-controlled Congress, it could portend things to come if Democrats return to the majority. Opinion polls in recent months have indicated a growing support for a federal role in healthcare. Pew Research found that 60 percent of Americans say that it is the federal government’s responsibility to ensure healthcare coverage for all Americans. Last spring, an Economist/You Gov poll found that that 60 percent favored a Medicare-for-all approach. That number includes 40 percent of Trump voters.
While most conservatives and Republicans will ridicule Sanders’ proposal as radical and dead-on-arrival, the idea of Medicare-for-all might have broader appeal than they suspect. If conservatives do not confront the idea head-on by enacting a better proposal, it is very possible that Republicans could face an invigorated Democratic Party in 2018 and 2020.
It is a cautionary tale to recall that Republicans defeated Hillarycare in the 1990s, but then failed to enact healthcare reforms of their own during the Bush Administration. That failure led directly to the election of Barack Obama and the Affordable Care Act.