U.S. Election - Because we know better than you do

[Maithanet]

Obama in 2008 pledged to get out of Iraq and double down on Afghanistan.  Yes, that would eventually lead to a pullout, but just wanting the war to end but only after a significant increase is not exactly "wanting to get out".  It wasn't until 2012 that Obama was campaigning on getting out of Afghanistan. 

Here is the NY Times summary of the 2008 Platform:

Quote

War in Iraq

Bring the war to a "responsible end". Withdraw combat brigades at the pace of one to two per month and complete redeployment within sixteen months. Keep a residual force in Iraq to target terrorists, protect American personnel and support Iraq’s Security Forces, "provided the Iraqis make political progress."

Afghanistan

Send at least two additional combat brigades and seek greater contributions from NATO allies. Build special forces and intelligence capacity; train, equip and advise Afghan security forces; and build Afghan governmental capacity. Help grow Afghanistan’s economy “from the bottom up, with an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year."

 

So I guess my point is that Obama is 2008 may have been a bit more liberal than Obama 2012, he still wasn't super liberal.  Sanders has much stronger liberal bona fides on virtually everything except gun control.   

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

Sanders' rhetoric on financial regulation wins a lot more liberal points with me than a vote to bomb Kosovo.

I know there's a criticism of Sanders being out of touch on minority rights, but is there something in his voting record to suggest he is less progressive on that?

Well, he pretty much voted in lockstep in the 90s with the whole tough crime stuff. And stated at one point that his rights on guns in Vermont is different than guns in the inner cities - that was awesome. He's not been particularly bad as far as I know compared to the rest of the Democratic group, but he's not been a very strong advocate either. 

[Kalbear]

Quote

So I guess my point is that Obama is 2008 may have been a bit more liberal than Obama 2012, he still wasn't super liberal.  Sanders has much stronger liberal bona fides on virtually everything except gun control. 

I think that's just not that fair - and I doubt very seriously that Sanders had stronger bona fides on other issues. Especially given that Sanders and Obama had basically the exact same voting record on war, Sanders was tougher on crime, and was far more lax on gun laws. 

[Mexal]

Jeb Bush has a new toy.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Triskan said:

They are not that similar on healthcare; it just feels that way to a lot of people.  Sanders is running on single-payer by land , sea, or air.  Obama openly talked about how single-payer might be best if one was starting from scratch but was borderline impossible now.  Obama's White House worked closely with the industry to craft something.  Sanders would totally ipend the industry.

It's interesting because this really depends a lot on when you look at it. During the primaries Obama was campaigning for something that didn't have mandated coverage - and Clinton was. He changed that to be a lot closer to the model we have with ACA, but it was also supposed to be a lot more expansive. It then got scaled down. 

[mormont]

16 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Jeb Bush has a new toy.

It's a bit late to make a bid for the macho vote, isn't it?

Or is this a warning sign? Could the next Republican debate take a shocking twist?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Kal,

You're just flat out wrong here. Obama is a liberal, but he's not as far left on most issues the way Sanders is. And wanting to act on the same issues is not the same as wanting to act in the same way on the same issues.

This is like citing Sanders and Clinton have very similar voting records. It's a shallow understanding of politics. You're far better off looking at how they voted on key votes and the rationale for their decisions.

[DanteGabriel]

11 minutes ago, mormont said:

It's a bit late to make a bid for the macho vote, isn't it?

Or is this a warning sign? Could the next Republican debate take a shocking twist?

Pretty desperate display. He should have had the foresight to make like his brother and buy a "ranch" where he could periodically pretend to "clear brush" for the cameras.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Kal,

You're just flat out wrong here. Obama is a liberal, but he's not as far left on most issues the way Sanders is. And wanting to act on the same issues is not the same as wanting to act in the same way on the same issues.

This is like citing Sanders and Clinton have very similar voting records. It's a shallow understanding of politics. You're far better off looking at how they voted on key votes and the rationale for their decisions.

I'm saying how Obama looked when campaigning, and what promises he made. And that - plus his voting record at the time - look very much like Sanders did. I agree that Obama didn't end up being nearly that liberal, and in some ways was about as unliberal as Reagan - but his actual stances when campaigning were very, very similar. 

Their rationale was also pretty similar, with very similar rhetoric up to that point. As an example - neither were for universal gay marriage in 2008. Neither were for the Iraq war. Both were for Afghanistan. Both were for closing Gitmo. Sanders was less liberal on guns than Obama at the time. Sanders was more liberal on healthcare. Obama was far more liberal in minority rights and police restrictions. But the gulf isn't nearly as big as people make it out to be. 

It should be easy to contradict if I'm wrong - simply show where Obama showed far more centrist views during his campaign in 2008 and compare it to Sanders. 

[Shryke]

Obama ran on and tried to close Gitmo, he ran on universal health care of the type the US got, he ran on continuing the war in Afghanistan and closing down the one in Iraq, and a bunch of other stuff that is alot less liberal then you are making it out to be Kalbear. He was a solid left-of-centre Democrat.

His grassroots rallying cry wasn't for hard left policies, it was for cooperation in government and people coming together.

 

33 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's interesting because this really depends a lot on when you look at it. During the primaries Obama was campaigning for something that didn't have mandated coverage - and Clinton was. He changed that to be a lot closer to the model we have with ACA, but it was also supposed to be a lot more expansive. It then got scaled down. 

Obama skipped the mandate cause it was unpopular but other then that his plan was basically Clintons. It wasn't like what Sanders is pushing for. Obama is pretty pragmatic when it comes to policy. He was always talking about working with the industry to create a solution.

Sanders is very much burn it down and rebuild it from the ground up and the industry is the enemy.

[Kalbear]

Quote

Obama ran on and tried to close Gitmo, he ran on universal health care of the type the US got, he ran on continuing the war in Afghanistan and closing down the one in Iraq, and a bunch of other stuff that is alot less liberal then you are making it out to be Kalbear. He was a solid left-of-centre Democrat.

I'm failing to see the distinction that you're making. 

Sanders would like to have a bigger universal health care plan. That's true. That's more liberal than Obama. 

He would also like to have laxer gun restrictions. That's true. That's less liberal than Obama. 

Sanders voted for the war in Afghanistan every time it came up. He voted to extend it. He has never stated that he wouldn't. That's the same.

Sanders voted for drone strikes and has stated he'd continue drone strikes. That's exactly the same. 

Sanders and Obama both voted to not go to war in Iraq. That's the same. 

Obama pledged to raise taxes on the rich to pay for his stuff. That's the same. 

Obama pledged to improve minority and LGBT rights in the workplace. That's more liberal (so far) than Sanders. 

I guess if universal health care is the only benchmark you care about then yes, Sanders is WAY WAY WAY more liberal. And i guess that's fair, but I don't see it as the only thing that makes a candidate liberal. It does make a lot of people seem to be very single-issue though. 

[Shryke]

7 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

The establishment looks like this: The real reason why Clintons always push our politics to the right

 

 

This analysis rather falls flat on it's face at the starting gate by trying to frame this as "the establishment vs the base". Kinda missing the point that the reason Clinton still polls better then Sanders overall is because she has more of the Democratic base behind her still. The author though assumes that somehow Clinton's supporters are the party elite and Sanders the party base because that feeds into the narrative she's trying to reinforce, despite the obvious issue that if Clinton didn't have a significant chunk of the party base with her this wouldn't even be a contest because the "establishment" or the "elite" or whatever do not make up the vast majority of the democratic party and of the people who vote.

[Shryke]

Just now, Kalbear said:

I'm failing to see the distinction that you're making. 

Sanders would like to have a bigger universal health care plan. That's true. That's more liberal than Obama. 

He would also like to have laxer gun restrictions. That's true. That's less liberal than Obama. 

Sanders voted for the war in Afghanistan every time it came up. He voted to extend it. He has never stated that he wouldn't. That's the same.

Sanders voted for drone strikes and has stated he'd continue drone strikes. That's exactly the same. 

Sanders and Obama both voted to not go to war in Iraq. That's the same. 

Obama pledged to raise taxes on the rich to pay for his stuff. That's the same. 

Obama pledged to improve minority and LGBT rights in the workplace. That's more liberal (so far) than Sanders. 

I guess if universal health care is the only benchmark you care about then yes, Sanders is WAY WAY WAY more liberal. And i guess that's fair, but I don't see it as the only thing that makes a candidate liberal. It does make a lot of people seem to be very single-issue though. 

Obama didn't vote not to go to war in Iraq bro. He wasn't even a Senator at the time.

And the healthcare issue is simply the largest indicator of the differences you keep trying to gloss over. Sanders is a far-left firebrand. That's what he's selling. Obama was never selling anything like this. He was selling pretty middle of the road democratic party positions. He never claimed to be trying to push the party left and never really tried. Obama's image was inspirational but not revolutionary.

You are missing the forest for the trees.

[Kalbear]

Quote

 

And the healthcare issue is simply the largest indicator of the differences you keep trying to gloss over. Sanders is a far-left firebrand. That's what he's selling. Obama was never selling anything like this. He was selling pretty middle of the road democratic party positions. He never claimed to be trying to push the party left and never really tried. Obama's image was inspirational but not revolutionary.

 

Obama's rhetoric was absolutely about pushing things leftward. I really disagree. It's certainly not what it is today, but back in 2007? When his slogan was 'yes we can' and he was telling everyone how we all have to work together to make something work? 

But let's get into this. What else is Sanders a far-left firebrand on? Race relations? Nope. Gay rights? Nope. War? Nope. Military downsizing? Nope. Rights for women? Nope. Abortion rights? Nope. Gun rights? Decidedly not. Maybe drug use (though he's waffled on this quite a bit). The main things are what, education reform (and only at the college level; he's silent on K12 stuff) and healthcare. 

And you're right - Obama didn't vote for Iraq. He said repeatedly at the time that we should not go to Iraq. Interestingly he had a different reason why - he was opposed to fighting in wars that did not have a set outcome and result, as opposed to Sanders who simply wanted more concrete information before committing. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

And you're right - Obama didn't vote for Iraq. He said repeatedly at the time that we should not go to Iraq. Interestingly he had a different reason why - he was opposed to fighting in wars that did not have a set outcome and result, as opposed to Sanders who simply wanted more concrete information before committing. 

 

This is absolutely not accurate. Here is what he actually said:

Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution. One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in international relations, not the first. Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if another country chose to do the same thing?

Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, ``An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.''

Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term American occupation of Iraq could be extremely expensive.

Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that remain unanswered.

If a unilateral American invasion of Iraq is not the best approach, what should we do? In my view, the U.S. must work with the United Nations to make certain within clearly defined timelines that the U.N. inspectors are allowed to do their jobs. These inspectors should undertake an unfettered search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and destroy them when found, pursuant to past U.N. resolutions. If Iraq resists inspection and elimination of stockpiled weapons, we should stand ready to assist the U.N. in forcing compliance.

[Kalbear]

It's not 'absolutely inaccurate'. What drivel. His final point was that if Iraq resists inspections or if evidence is found then the US should help enforce compliance. What do you think that entails? But sure, fine. 

Here's Obama's transcript on what he said, too. The takeaway for me is that Sanders had a lot of questions he wanted answered. He isn't saying "You want a fight, President Bush" like Obama did - he's asking for info. Asking for what's going to happen after, what the legal justification is, what the moral standing will be. Obama isn't doing that. The rhetoric is very different. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's not 'absolutely inaccurate'. What drivel. His final point was that if Iraq resists inspections or if evidence is found then the US should help enforce compliance. What do you think that entails? But sure, fine.

It entails what he said- "we should stand ready to assist the U.N. in forcing compliance."

You know, like Obama said:

 

Quote

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

 

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

Contrary to popular belief, Sanders does actually have a decent track record at working with Republicans. Here's an article about him when he was first standing for Senate:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-horror-show-that-is-congress-20050825

Sanders is the amendment king of the current House of Representative. Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker – not Tom DeLay, not Nancy Pelosi – has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions.

[Larry of the Lawn]

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's not 'absolutely inaccurate'. What drivel. His final point was that if Iraq resists inspections or if evidence is found then the US should help enforce compliance. What do you think that entails? But sure, fine. 

Here's Obama's transcript on what he said, too. The takeaway for me is that Sanders had a lot of questions he wanted answered. He isn't saying "You want a fight, President Bush" like Obama did - he's asking for info. Asking for what's going to happen after, what the legal justification is, what the moral standing will be. Obama isn't doing that. The rhetoric is very different. 

Well, you're right it's not absolutely inaccurate, but the part about Obama voting on the Iraw War is.  And trying to make it seem like they have some vastly different stance on the Iraw War is very misleading; Obama's quoted speech merely extends the principle he's using to make the decision to other conflicts and historical precedents.  Sanders simply focuses on the vote at hand.  And it's pretty clear that neither supported unilateral action against Saddam.  

[Kalbear]

I don't think that they had a  vastly different stance on the war. But again - the notion that Sanders is SO FAR AND AWAY LIBERAL compared to what Obama was campaigning against isn't supported here, either. Of the two, which took a more concilliatory tone?