Say, Didn’t You Used to be Bernie Sanders?

by Steve Rohosky

 

Looks like Janey Sanders is every bit the accomplished liar hubby Bernard has become. During an interview with Rachel Maddow Thursday, Mrs. Sanders claimed pro-Hillary Clinton super PACS have spent more than $70 million on ads, to this point. Friday, Maddow refuted that statement and set the record straight by producing a graphic showing the PACS have spent less than HALF what Mrs. Sanders claimed, $39 million less, in fact.

Couple that with an early Friday morning appearance on CNN when the interviewer mentioned, quite correctly, by how many elected delegates and super delegates Bernard trails Clinton. Janey indignantly replied: “That’s not accurate.” Invited to correct any misinformation the interviewer had been given, Sanders retorted: “I’m not here to discuss math with you.”

Bernard and his lies have either been a really bad influence upon his wife, or Janey taught the Senator everything she knows about fallacies. Which, apparently, isn’t nearly as much as the missus would like to think. Really, numbers CAN be rather easily verified. DUH!!

Or is it more a case that Bernard and Janey realize their Great Adventure is rapidly drawing to a close, so what do they have to lose at this point? After all, his reputation as someone who is honest to a fault has already been shot to hell. Not that it seems to matter, One Way or Another–GREAT song–to the majority of his Pinball Wizard-like acolytes.

Yet as ever more desperation is clearly setting in with both Sanders, Bernard increasingly looks the part of the kind of politician he once forged a profitable career railing against. All things being equal, perhaps it’s time for the Ol’ Socialist to consider retirement. This way, he and his spouse Mrs. Mouse can give speeches for big bucks, write books, appear publicly (for a healthy fee, of course) and generally recreate what Hillary and Bill did to earn their millions.

You know, that for which Bernard has been disparaging the ultimate Democratic power couple the past several years. At this point, a little more hypocrisy isn’t going to further damage the legacy of Sanders. THAT ship sailed, some time ago.

This way, the next firebrand politician who inspires disaffected youth to bitterly complain about how inequitable their lives are–only to remain comfortably ensconced in Mom and Pop’s basement when it comes time to vote–he or she can point to the former presidential candidate and query rhetorically: “Didn’t you used to be Bernie Sanders?” And after metaphorically spitting on the ground near where the allegorical former Senator stands, the latest political agent provocateur can raise both fists high and bellow toward the heavens: “Please! May that I never sell out for mere money–proclaimed with all the derision one can muster–like that guy Sanders, who sold all of you good people out!”

All the while he or she will be counting the days, months, years until their opportunity presents. This way, another sparkling cord on yet another golden parachute can be pulled, affording one more now former politician the opportunity to land comfortably, softly, upon sweet stacks of Benjamins. Just like Bernard and Jane Sanders.

Times of Desperation For BS

by Steve Rohosky

Desperate times do indeed call for measures of desperation from the campaign of Bernard Sanders, Incorporated. In a new low for this Democratic primary season, his incontestably impolitic surrogate Rosario Dawson broke out the victim card during an appearance, ostensibly to tout the wonder of Sanders.

Speaking to a gathering of his fairy dust spattered minions, the actress/director/inept public speaker lamented how poor Bernie and his passive, albeit intensely passionate followers are being incessantly bullied by that vindictive harpy Hillary Clinton. That indeed she, Dawson, is certain they are being punished for their beliefs in a manner reminiscent to how HRC once impugned, consummately demeaned and maligned poor Lil Monica (Lewinsky.)

Yes, she went THERE. Many in the crowd became noticeably agitated at the dredging up of Lewinsky’s name and voiced displeasure at Dawson’s ungainly effort to use it as a weapon.

One of the oldest political dirty tricks in the book is to use a surrogate to float an idea, voice an attack, in order to gage the response for that which a politician doesn’t feel entirely comfortable. Should it fall completely flat–as did this–well, then the candidate has just cause to throw the offending party under the proverbial bus. It’s all about plausible deniability, you see.

Never the less, having gaged the unwillingness of Sanders to condemn Dawson during a Sunday morning TV interview, though, it would seem to suggest he was completely on board with the test drive of such a reprehensible attack on Hillary Clinton. Coming, as it did, from another supposed Democrat. In point of fact, the whole thing might well have been the VT senator’s idea, in the place. Alas, we may never know.

Yet, as if one gigantic gaffe wasn’t enough, the unskilled neophyte compounded it further by grousing as to how Bernard’s innocent minions are being bullied online by overzealous Clinton disciples. Considering the multitude of über aggressive BernieBots and Bros trolling the Internet looking to target and harass women supporters of HRC, Dawson might want to reconsider throwing that accusatory stone, again, seeing as how the political house she so avidly supports is erected entirely of glass.

Meanwhile, BS continues to denounce Hillary with all the fervor the Ol’ Geezer can muster. On the trail, campaign manager Jeff Weaver appeared on a 24 hour news channel, pledging to ignore the will of the people while detailing plans to disrupt the Democratic convention. He guaranteed every effort will be made to flip already pledged super delegates so that Sanders might yet win the nomination.

Of course, this strategy completely contradicts Bernard’s early diatribes AGAINST the usage of super delegates to determine the nominee. Many was the time he vociferously argued that the will of the people should determine the nomination, not the party elite. Now that “the people” are speaking with a resounding clamor for Clinton and not Bernard, well…in the words of the famous Nineties pop philosopher, Steve Urkel:
“Did I do that??”

Ah, well, what’s still more hypocrisy from the Sanders campaign?

Presidential candidates are generally expected to display a modicum of class and a degree of dignity–Donald Trump and Ted Cruz seemingly excepted. Perhaps someone should tell Bernard “One Shot” Sanders that shaking the hand of the greatly respected Pope Francis in and of itself did not imbue the candidate with any of the pontiffs class.

At the same time, tales of Sanders stalking the Pope in the hallway at 4AM, as well as his boasts to the press afterwards about their “private meeting” so angered the normally mild mannered Pope, he felt compelled to explain how Senator Sanders received a very polite handshake and nothing more. All of which did more to further degrade what little dignity Barn-Barn has remaining, rather than enhance it, which one must assume was the entire point of the Great Adventure in the first place.

The deplorable actions and behavior of all involved, by himself and those acting upon his behalf during this primary season, will no doubt be strongly considered by voters in those state having yet to hold primaries. Certainly, Bernard Sanders is responsible for his own bad behavior. That we expected more from him, however, is entirely our own fault.

Open Letter to Bernie Sanders Supporters

by Jennifer Lee

This is the most important election of our lives. This may be your first time at the rodeo, but this rodeo is not like any of the others that came before it. This time, our rights are not protected by the Voting Rights Act. There is no margin for error. We cannot merely win, we must win by a landslide to make up for the inevitable cheating the Republicans will perpetrate everywhere the opportunity presents itself. If we lose, we cannot make it up in the next election. There will be no “next election” for non-conservatives, the GOP will make sure of that.

The next president will be selecting 3 – 4 new justices to serve life terms on the Supreme Court. If the Democratic Party nominee wins, we have the chance to shift the balance of the SCOTUS to the most staunchly liberal position in history. If civil liberties matter to you, this should be your goal above all else.

If the Republican nominee wins, the Supreme Court will be re-populated with the most dangerous hardcore conservative religious zealots to ever sit the bench. And they will control this nation for DECADES.

Your vote has absolutely nothing to do with a revolution. Please stop with that childishness. You are adults. You have a responsibility that will have repercussions for everyone for the rest of our lives. There is a time for risk and a time for extreme caution. There is a time to make a point with your political voice, and there is a time when winning is a matter of life and death. Your vote isn’t about what you want, it’s about who you are.

The Democratic Party has elected Hillary Clinton as our nominee. She won fairly and by a wide margin. Whether you like it or not, supporting our candidate is the only way to keep the Supreme Court out of Republican hands. Refusing to do your part is certainly a statement- it is the ultimate expression of white privilege.

If you are willing to let a Republican win this election, you are a misogynist, because you are willing to gamble with Roe v. Wade. Not only will abortion be made universally illegal across the country, but further steps will be taken to outlaw birth control and investigate miscarriages as potential homicides. The bills are already written and waiting for the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Hundreds of bills are waiting, in every conservative state, for that one SCOTUS decision that will pitch women back into the dark ages.

If you are willing to let a Republican win this election, you are anti-LGBT, because you are willing to let every same-sex marriage be dissolved and allow such unions to be banned. Adoptions will be reversed and children who were raised by same-sex couples will end up in foster care. Again, the bills are written, waiting for the right SCOTUS to gut civil liberties.

If you are willing to let a Republican win this election, you are not concerned with the health and well-being of your fellow Americans. The ACA will be repealed immediately, along with every program that provides health care to the needy, elderly, veterans and disabled. Privatization will push healthcare out of the reach of most people. The seriously ill will die first, then those with pre-existing conditions who cannot continue treatment. Infant mortality will skyrocket. Quality of life will be reserved for the financially secure, as the rest of us go bankrupt and lose our homes due to hospital bills.

If you are willing to let a Republican win this election, you are an unconscionable bigot of the lowest order, callously dooming MILLIONS of innocent civilians to death in the next inevitable war started by the new GOP president. All of the GOP candidates have promised to tear up the peace agreement with Iran. If you are willing to gamble this fragile treaty, even as Iranians show their hope and optimism with their own democratic elections, you are unabashedly a racist, viewing the lives of Middle Eastern people as disposable.

If you are willing to let a Republican win this election, you are a nihilist, willing to bet the very last opportunity we will EVER have of stopping global warming before it reaches the point of no return. This is it. There are no second chances. A loss in this particular election will keep the dark money in politics, geometrically expanding it past any chance of having a truly free democratic election in this nation for many decades. How much damage did George Bush manage to do to our country, our lives, our planet, in just eight years? How much damage will the Republican Party do to the world if they are in control for SEVERAL DECADES?

Famine, disease, drought and suffering will be commonplace around the globe. Yes, that is how important this ONE election really IS. Your actions have repercussions, and you will be sharing the planet with the people you fucked over. And we will know who did it and why.

Think about that.

Ted Cruz: Professional Demagogue

By Steve Rohosky

 

Let’s begin by establishing that Raphael (Ted) Cruz, candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, is a megalomaniac. No matter how one chooses to define and/or describe it, synonyms such as self-centered, pompous, egotistical and vainglorious fit the Texas Blowhard like an army of astrologers camped out at the Reagan White House.

But then, severe character flaws seem to be de rigueur within the Cruz family. His father and wife have both pronounced with great certainty and absolute aplomb–while reportedly maintaining perfectly straight faces–Ted(dy Bare) is God’s Chosen One. That He wants Der Cruzer to be elected the next president of these somewhat United States. Their certainty is said to be so unassailable, it’s as if Pops and the missus have the Christian deity on speed dial.

Hard to ague with either: A) that kind of devotion, not to mention degree of certainty, or B) people off their meds entirely TOO long.

He-Who-Was-Definitely-Not-The-Chosen-One-In-The-New-York-Primary on Tuesday gave a speech intended to be uplifting for his acolytes, later that evening. In it, he had the effrontery to not just invoke the memory and accomplishments of John F. Kennedy, but Cruz brazenly juxtaposed himself as someone following in the beloved former Democratic president’s footsteps, this campaign.

The speech was given soon after The Senator managed to extricate his beloved black ostrich skin cowboy boots–including feet and socks–from his gaping maw, where his dimwitted and altogether derisive put-down of “New York values” led to his disastrous showing in the New York primary.

It was, characteristically, a thoroughly disgraceful diatribe. One which, were Kennedy still alive, he doubtless would have reviled the remarkably regressive Cruz for such a shallow, despicable and all together desperate dissertation.

As if attempting to glom onto the legacy of JFK wasn’t narcissistic enough, the candidate also conjured the revisionist glories of rightist extremist Saint Ronald Reagan.

Remember, Cruz is the self obsessed former protege of Sarah Palin who shut down the government, several years ago, for no other reasons than it garnered him publicity aplenty and to portray himself as not just another trendy anti Washington interloper. No, he wanted to be known as THE ultimate beyond the capital beltway outsider.

Below is a portion of the speech (verbatim) given by God’s rapidly fading champion. Given after fleeing the angry hordes of New York City. In fact, the only things missing as Cruz was chased across the border with New Jersey were pitchforks, flaming torches and effigies to be set ablaze later that night. Having managed to avoid the chestytraps–Republicans no longer reference the word “booby” for obvious reasons–and numerous Jersey State troopers Trump supporter Chis Christie planted along way, the Lone Star Mighty Mouth successfully relocated, barely, the traveling combination Old Fashioned Revival of Faith and Minstrel Show which masquerades as a Cruz campaign rally. Settled right where his exaltedness hopes he will find a more receptive audience in Philadelphia, PA.

Good luck with that, Senator, considering Philadelphia’s reputation as a town tough to please. One exceedingly well earned, as immortalized several decades ago when tens of thousands of football fans attending an Eagles game greeted the arrival of Santa Claus with lusty booing and insults not to be heard during the family TV viewing hour.

If Philly residents could boo Saint Nick, image the kind of creative displeasure which possibly awaits Raphael (Ted) Cruz, practicing professional demagogue, should he verbalize more boneheaded insults of the locals, highlighted by condescending comments about “Pennsylvania values.”

Behold:

“This is the year of the outsider. I’m an outsider; Bernie Sanders is an outsider. Both with the same diagnosis, but both with very different paths to healing. Millions of Americans have chosen one of these outsiders.

“Our campaigns don’t find our fuel in bundlers and special interests, but rather directly from the people. The wide eyed youth of any age that haven’t given up on the hope that tomorrow can and will be better.

“Ronald Reagan and Jack Kennedy were outsiders. They both represented a whole new vision and vibrancy. A new generation of ideas. Jack Kennedy looked forward, instead of back to the first half century of world war. He knew that America could dream and build if we were set free. Not tanks for war, but rockets for exploration.

“Reagan looked out to us, the most powerful force for innovation that the world has even known. There we found new tech pioneers like Bill Gates and a young Steve Jobs. They had vision and the freedom to build a new world that at the time only they saw. Because they were free they challenged the way and changed the way that all of us live, work and interact.

“Now it’s our turn.

“This generation must first look inward to see who we really are after years of being beaten down. Years of being told we couldn’t, shouldn’t, or wouldn’t. This generation needs to answer a new set of questions: Can we, should we, will we…”

In the immortal words of former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, Lloyd Bentsen: “I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

Now, pardon me while I once again metaphorically hurl my outrage into a strategically placed bucket.

Campaign Finance Math is More Likely to Finish Bernie than Election Math

by Yvette Grimes

Here’s why Hillary doesn’t hold large rallies. They’re God-awful expensive. Say you want to hold a rally in a park for 27,000 people (actually Bernie had about 11,000, but lied with the higher number) you can’t just say meet me at the park. You have to pay for a permit, arrange and pay for porta potties, and pay for almost all the security. The city/town pays for their regular patrols, the person holding the rally has to arrange for and pay security in advance. These are almost always off-duty cops who can wear their uniform. They make about $100-$200/hour. For a crowd of about 27,000 that’s at a minimum of $100,000 per hour. And the candidate has to pay for clean-up afterwards. A huge rally can cost the candidate a million in campaign donations. For what? He has a photo-op of him in front of a lot of people.

What does Hillary have? Photo-ops of her sitting with some guys and winning at Dominos; eating an ice cream concoction named after her; dancing the Meringue in Harlem with a small crowd going wild and dancing with her; visiting and talking with children; and meeting and listening to people having problems. Oh, and the best one of all looking at and coveting that piece of cheesecake as one of her campaign aides digs into a slice of strawberry cheesecake. Total cost for Hillary maybe $10,000.

Results, of a photo of Bernie waving his arms in front of crowds of mostly young white men. Same old same old. How many photos have you seen of Bernie in a coffee shop talking to actual people? He doesn’t do that. He has no personal touch. He’d be waving his arms around knocking the customers out.

Photo-ops of Hillary all over the place meeting with actual people and talking with them. Remember she invented the listening tour in 2000 before running for the Senate.

Bernie rally photo-op shared 10,000 times. Hillary staring at that cheesecake (we’ve all been there) shared millions of times. Millions of dollars in viral publicity.

Bernie is burning through his cash. Hillary spent a few million in advertising. Bernie spent more in New York than Clinton, Trump, Cruz, and Kasich combined. And don’t forget the $1.6 million for the one-day vacation in the Vatican that backfired.

The result Bernie was clobbered in NY.

That Vatican trip paid for by his campaign is not an allowable campaign expense. The FEC will disallow it and he’ll be on the hook for it.

Bernie has about $4 million in the bank. Hillary has about $33 million.

In three separate notices, the FEC informed Bernie that he has about $28 million in illegal funds (over limit and foreign donations) to be returned, as well as that mysterious $10 million donation.

His campaign debt I estimate at $20 plus million.

Let’s see if he announces raising a huge amount after his big loss. He has raised less and less from those donors each month.

If he’s thinking of getting out of the campaign his first call will be to the Clinton campaign to talk about her helping retire his campaign debt by holding rallies with him. She’ll agree only if he works to unite the party and campaigns for her. Then AFTER November if he meets the requirements of the agreement she’ll help raise money to retire the debt. If he’s indecisive and speaks off message, then no deal, and he’s saddled with millions of dollars in debt with a 2018 Senate re-election bid looming. And this time no deals with the Vermont Democratic Party. They are going to run a Democratic Primary for a Democratic candidate. He won’t be able to convince contractors to work for him (ad reps, designers, get out the vote callers) if he’s still stiffing companies from his 2016 campaign.

Sanders is in financial trouble. He knows it and Hillary knows it. He’d better start playing nice.

 

Common Sense Bank Reform

by Jack Wibbe

Senator Sanders, the centerpiece of your campaign is to break up the big banks, but you admitted you haven’t even studied how to do it. You are clueless about the financial sector, the laws, or the powers of the president and the agencies. All you seem to know about Wall Street banks is investing in their stocks, using their money to fund your campaign, pretending you never took their money, and then slamming Hillary for taking the same bank money that you do. So, would you like a do-over? Do you have your bank plan ready NOW? Here, we will help. You can cheat off of Hillary’s plan, which is excellent, and comes in four steps.

First, Hillary plans to keep using Dodd-Frank to pressure the banks: use the new rules for the Fed and the SEC and the consumer protection agency, new rules for credit ratings and securities and hedge fund managers and accountants, rules for mortgage lenders and executive pay and that credit-swap market you deregulated (which actually caused the 2008 crash), and impose risk management for banks.

Second, Hillary plans to continue with the rules Obama imposed after Dodd-Frank, to go after companies that are not banks but are too big, predatory lenders, mid-size banks who take too many risks, banks who aid and abet tax evasion, crooked investment advisers, banks who don’t have crisis management plans, and banks who set up Panama-style shell companies – these are innovations which Hillary helped Obama to launch while you sulked on the sidelines.

Third, Hillary plans to add new rules of her own, some of the strictest ever devised: impose risk fees on the big banks, make it hard for banks to gamble with guaranteed deposits, get strict with hedge funds and investment banks, lean on non-banks that play in the investment game, give plenty of resources to the SEC, put a tax on high-frequency trading, bring transparency to the stock market, impose accountability on executives, reward whistleblowers, close the carried-interest loophole, and punish firms harder when they break the rules.

Fourth, Hillary will reject your idiotic plan to break up the big banks arbitrarily: the big banks aren’t even the biggest banks in the world and they are already downsizing and reducing risk by increasing liquidity. Breaking them up would cause disruption, force people to switch banks, impose fees, cause layoffs, shrink ATM networks, cause banks to dump less-profitable businesses that help consumers, push business to foreign banks, push investment portfolios to risky unregulated sectors, and disrupt the existing Dodd-Frank mechanisms.

So, there’s a whole pile of hints. Senator Sanders, do you FINALLY have your own plan for the fiscal sector? Because once we strip away your non-existent bank plan, your hypocritical attacks regarding Wall Street and Iraq, and all your other attacks and sleazy campaign tricks….you really don’t have a campaign left.

Beware the Public Image

by Steve Rohosky

Bernard Sanders, Inc revels in repeated rants about Hillary Clinton taking money from (fill in his blank) for private speeches. Bragging how HE is above stooping to such a lowly, contemptible capitalistic ploy as accepting that which he ceaselessly sermonizes to be the filthy lucre and no-doubt ill gotten gains of corrupt corporations and clandestine businesses. All for something BS considers as banal as giving a speech. Eewwww…yucky!

Well, guess what? As a current member of the US senate, Barn-Barn CANNOT accept an honorarium–read: payment or other remuneration–for a personal appearance or speech!! Which makes it infinitely easier to adopt a holier-than-attitude towards something, knowing you are prohibited, even if you wanted.

Taken from ethics.senate.gov, pg 7:
“NO honoraria may be received by any Member, officer, or employee.An “honorarium” is a fee for any speech, appearance, or article (including for a series of speeches, appearances, or articles if the series is directly related to an individual’s Senate duties or if payment is made because of an individual’s Senate position). Necessary expenses of travel are not honoraria.”

Once more, the Ol’ Geezer has proven to be the consummate hypocrite by incessantly attacking Hillary Clinton for giving paid speeches–which was well within her rights as a private citizen, following her stint as Secretary of State–while purposely misrepresenting himself to his stupefyingly myopic minions to be the kind of man who wouldn’t deign to stoop so low as to accept payment for speeches.

Of course Sanders wouldn’t, BECAUSE HE CAN’T!! To do as HRC was able would be a congressional ethics violation.

That the media fails to call out Colonial Sanders for his constant lies, innuendo and obfuscations only serves to underscore how deeply entrenched are the desires of the 24 hour news networks for these primaries to be reasonably close and comparatively competitive. But to ignore such fallacious pontifications as Bernard’s one time boast about not accepting money from PACS–he does–or from employees of fossil fuel companies (surprise, surprise!) is deplorable.

Equally so is the way only just now, months into the campaign, are pundits accurately reporting that Sanders voted FOR the very same 1994 Crime Bill he has repeatedly and with great relish savaged Big Bill for signing into law. Hillary has been the incessant target of the ‪#‎BernedOut‬ ones chastising for this bill, too. After all, in perfect Sandersian logic, she is his wife, thus rendering her guilty by extension. That Hillary never cast a ballot for the bill doesn’t seem to matter. You see, to those who exist almost exclusively upon Planet Bernie, supporting ones husband and his policies as then First Lady, is infinitely worse than his “yes” vote as a congressman. Just as that same twisted logic predicates Bernard’s numerous votes to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars pale in comparison to his vote against the Iraq invasion.

I see, said the Pinball Wizard of minions: blind, deaf and unconscionably dumb.

In reality, it takes a special kind of political self delusion to believe voting against the invasion of another country entitles you to a lifetime of chest thumping and special benefits. This while the repeated voting to PAY for the war which resulted from said incursion–the war Sanders claims to have been vehemently against–matters not in the slightest. Or so he would have all those mystified lemmings who flock to see him and delightedly donate hard earned money to Bernard Sanders Inc, postulate.

After all, what’s 5,000 American dead in Iraq when compared to the pork Bernard was able to send back to VT, in the form of some defense contractor jobs. Jobs placed in his state in return for his yes vote on the funding bill. Or do you actually think there couldn’t possibly have been any quid pro quo because Vermont was the perfect place for defense contractors to open a couple of branch offices right after Bernie’s yes vote??

Seemingly desperate for a political and cultural hero in which to blindly believe, BS’s youthful Acolytes–and older ones who have been around long enough to know better–all seem to have fallen under a sort of mass misconception that this man, this politician, is “different.” In reality, he is nothing but a manipulative fraud, slavishly devoted to his archaic “old hippie” late ’50’s to mid Sixties-steeped ideology. The kind of four decades long professional politician who, in order to satisfy his lust for power, deceitfully sells the possibility of fantastical freebies to the youthfully naïve and trusting. Plans a President Sanders will have no more a chance of ushering into being than Trump’s Southern border wall for which he insists he will force Mexico to pay.

The truth of the matter is: BS, Inc is a candidate with an undeniably manufactured public image, the beneficiary of a carefully crafted facade contrived to hide his narcissism and deceit, his misogyny and megalomania. Not to mention other debilitating deficiencies. Deficiencies too crippling, IMHO, for ANYONE who actively seeks to become the President of the United States and leader of the free world.

Hypocrite, thy name is Bernard Sanders.