• About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Support
    • Feedback
  • Log In
  • Register
↓
 

The Progressive Wing

You Are The Revolution

  • Home
    • About Us
      • Contact Us
      • FAQ
    • Members
  • Candidates
  • Organizations
  • Media
Home→Tags Bernie Sanders - Page 2

Tag Archives: Bernie Sanders

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →

9/20 News Roundup & OT

The Progressive Wing Posted on September 20, 2021 by BennySeptember 21, 2021

Sanders, Top Dems Optimistic Party Will ‘Come Together’ for Reconciliation Package

In a series of Sunday television appearances, key congressional leaders seemed optimistic that the Democratic caucuses of both chambers would join forces to pass both a bipartisan infrastructure bill and a Build Back Better package to advance President Joe Biden’s agenda—even if it requires missing a rapidly approaching deadline.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in order to advance the budget resolution for the broader package last month, struck a deal with a small group of right-wing Democrats that the chamber would “consider” the bipartisan bill by September 27, which is a week from Monday.

Progressives in the House have made clear that they won’t back the infrastructure bill unless Congress simultaneously passes a $3.5 trillion package for social and climate programs. Passing that package through the budget reconciliation process allows Democrats to avoid a GOP filibuster in the Senate but forces them to follow certain rules and get full caucus support.

Asked on “Face the Nation” Sunday whether the package’s $3.5 trillion price tag may come down to secure support from right-wingers such as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Senate Budget Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) indicated that was not an option.

“We’re going to have to work it out, as we did with the American Rescue Plan. But I have already made, and my colleagues have made, a major compromise,” Sanders told CBS’ Margaret Brennan, noting that he initially fought for an investment of at least $6 trillion over a decade.

Emphasizing that “$3.5 trillion is much too low,” and “a compromise has already been made,” Sanders called on his colleagues to pass the package for the American public—which, as he pointed out, broadly supports Democrats’ spending plans, according to recent polling.

“Now is the time to stand up to powerful special interests. Now is the time to start representing working families,” said Sanders, who predicted that “because of the pressure of the American people we’re going to come together again and do what has to be done.”

While sharing Sanders’ prediction that Democrats will ultimately pass a reconciliation package, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) suggested during a Sunday appearance on “State of the Union” that they may not do so by their own deadline.

“There’s always a possibility that the vote would get delayed, but the question is: ‘Are we going to work to get to our goal for September 27?’ Yes, we are going to work hard to reach that goal, and sometimes you have to kind of stop the clock to get to the goal. We’ll do what’s necessary to get there,” Clyburn told CNN’s Jake Tapper.

Addressing the debate over the reconciliation package’s price tag, Clyburn said that “we ought to stop focusing on the number and start looking at what needs to be done.”

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), chair of the House Budget Committee, echoed Clyburn’s comments on “Fox News Sunday,” telling Chris Wallace that “we’re not really focused on the top line of spending” but also “I suspect it will be somewhat less than $3.5 trillion.”

“What we’re focused on is the fact that these are things that we absolutely have to do as country,” Yarmuth said. “These are not frivolous matters. We have a desperate deficiency in the social infrastructure in this country, access to affordable child care, the absence of early childhood education, [and] the infrastructure for senior care.”

The congressman also said that while the current plan is to vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill by Pelosi’s deadline, under the House rules, even if the chamber passes the Senate-approved legislation, Pelosi does not have to immediately send it to the president for signature, so “there’s some flexibility in terms of how we mesh the two… mandates.”

Yarmuth also predicted that for the reconciliation package, “we’re probably going to slip past the September 27th date, sometime into… early October would be my best guess.”

Democrats are still working out the details of several parts of the sweeping reconciliation package, set to include major policies on child care, climate, education, immigration, Medicare expansion and drug pricing, and taxation—with ongoing debates about deductions for state and local taxes as well as tax hikes for rich corporations and individuals.

The New York Times’ Jim Tankersley reported Saturday that “no president has ever packed as much of his agenda, domestic and foreign, into a single piece of legislation as President Biden has with the $3.5 trillion spending plan that Democrats are trying to wrangle through Congress.”

More news, analysis, and of course, your comments for the thread below. See you there!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged 2022 elections, Bernie Sanders, Reconciliation Bill

9/16-17 News Roundup & Open Thread at Benny’s Bar

The Progressive Wing Posted on September 16, 2021 by BennySeptember 17, 2021

Hello Birdies!

We’ll start with a Common Dreams piece about Sanders and others reaction to three center-right House Dems voting against Medicare having negotiating authority for prescription prices.

After three House Democrats voted against a key plank of their party’s plan to lower prescription drug prices, Sen. Bernie Sanders said Wednesday that Congress must ensure the provision is included in the final budget reconciliation package despite objections from conservative lawmakers.

“The good news is that the full Congress must and will do far better,” Sanders added. “At a time when the drug companies are charging us by far the highest prices in the world, Congress must demand that Medicare negotiate prices with this extremely greedy and powerful industry.”

The Vermont senator’s statement came after a popular proposal to let Medicare directly negotiate prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies failed to pass the House Energy and Commerce Committee in a 29-29 vote. Reps. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.), and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) joined their GOP colleagues in voting against the provision, which is backed by the White House and the Democratic leadership.

Medicare, the largest buyer of prescription medicines in the U.S., is currently barred by federal law from negotiating prices with drug manufacturers thanks to a “non-interference clause” that progressives have long sought to repeal. Democrats’ current proposal would amend the clause to allow the secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare—a plan that could dramatically cut costs for patients and produce hundreds of billions of dollars in federal savings over the next decade.

A version of the plan was included in legislation (H.R. 3) that the House passed in late 2019 with the support of Peters, Rice, and Schrader. But the conservative Democrats are balking now that the proposal—once a mere messaging and campaign tool—actually has a chance of becoming law.

The pharmaceutical industry is fervently opposed to allowing the federal government to negotiate drug costs, which would threaten companies’ ability to set sky-high prices. The Government Accountability Office estimated earlier this year that in 2017, Medicare Part D paid twice as much for the same prescription medicines as the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to directly negotiate prices.

According to a study published last week by Gallup and West Health, more than 15 million U.S. adults under the age of 65 and 2.3 million seniors were unable to afford at least one doctor-prescribed medication this year.

“The pharmaceutical industry has spent over $4.5 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions over the past 20 years and has hired some 1,200 lobbyists to get Congress to do its bidding. They are the most powerful industry on Capitol Hill,” Sanders said Wednesday. “Nonetheless, the American people are demanding that Congress stand up to them and finally lower the outrageous price of prescription drugs by requiring Medicare to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry.”

“Now is the time for Congress to show courage and stand up to the greed of the pharmaceutical industry,” the Vermont senator added. “The American people will not accept surrender.”

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the industry’s top lobbying organization, applauded Peters, Rice, and Schrader for stopping the Medicare negotiation plan from passing out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Peters and Schrader are both major recipients of pharma donations.

“This should be a strong signal to the House leadership that there is broad support for lowering costs for patients without sacrificing access to new cures and treatments,” the group said, deploying its favorite—and highly misleading—talking point against the proposal.

Aija Nemer-Aanerud, the Healthcare for All organizer at People’s Action, said Wednesday that the three Democrats’ votes were “a bald-faced display of corporate allegiance.”

“We’re living through a once-in-a-generation opportunity to win big for poor and working people,” said Nemer-Aanerud. “Today’s actions prove they want nothing to do with this vision.”

Despite the provision’s failure in the Energy and Commerce Committee, Sanders and other top lawmakers in the Democratic caucus voiced confidence that Medicare price negotiation will ultimately be included in the final reconciliation package. Nemer-Aanerud noted that the House Rules Committee has the ability to insert the Medicare negotiation language ahead of floor debate on the reconciliation bill.

Soon after the plan was rejected by Energy and Commerce, the House Ways and Means Committee—which also has jurisdiction over health policy—approved it, with Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) voting no. House Democrats can only afford three no votes on the final reconciliation package, which lawmakers hope to complete by the end of the month.

David Mitchell, a cancer patient and founder of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, applauded the Ways and Means panel’s vote and said Democrats must “fulfill their promise to pass strong Medicare negotiation to lower drug prices on behalf of Americans.”

“The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee stood strong with patients today by voting to advance H.R. 3 in the reconciliation package,” said Mitchell. “The inclusion of this strong Medicare negotiation legislation fuels momentum towards comprehensive, meaningful reform to provide relief to millions of Americans facing high drug prices in this country.”

More news, tweets, and perspectives along with your comments below. This also serves an open thread. Benny’s Bar will be open for beverages and maybe a video jukebox!

West Lafayette Bar.jpg

West Lafayette Bar.jpg

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Bernie Sanders, ConservaDems, Healthcare, Medicare, Open Thread, Reconciliation Bill

Happy Birthday Mr. Chair of the Budget Committee

The Progressive Wing Posted on September 8, 2021 by BennySeptember 8, 2021

Bernie is 80 years young today!

Have some cake! I’m going to post tweets by Berners who displayed their good wishes today.

Shine on, you mensch! Forever grateful for your heart, vision, and undying commitment to equity & justice.

❤️🗽👊🏽🌹#BernieSanders #ShadowPresident #NotMeUs #NoMiddleGround #TheTimeIsNow #HelloSomebody #Bernie2016 #Bernie2020 pic.twitter.com/BVpGj50hU8

— BerkeleyBernie (@BernieBerkeley) September 8, 2021

Feel free to add your own or maybe a song or two. For the latest news, visit the thread by Jcitybone below this one.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Bernie Sanders, birthdays

8/3 OH-11 Special Dem Primary Election & Open Thread

The Progressive Wing Posted on August 3, 2021 by BennyAugust 3, 2021

Greetings Birdies!

Today is the Dem primary in OH-11, although early voting started July 7th.

Nina Turner and Shontel Brown face off in a high-profile Ohio special House election

Former state Sen. Nina Turner and Cuyahoga County Council member Shontel Brown are the frontrunners in a multicandidate Democratic primary for the special election in Ohio’s 11th Congressional District.

In March, the seat was vacated by then-Democratic Rep. Marcia Fudge, who stepped down to become the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Joe Biden.

The racially diverse, reliably Democratic 11th district stretches from Cleveland’s east side to Akron, with a mix of working-to-upper-middle-class suburbs including Euclid and Shaker Heights. The district backed Biden by a margin of 60 percentage points, 79.8 to 19.2%, over former President Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

The winner of the Democratic primary will be the overwhelming favorite to win the Nov. 2 general election.

Turner, who served on the Cleveland City Council from 2006 to 2008 and was a member of the Ohio Senate from 2008 to 2014, became a nationally-known figure as president of the political organization Our Revolution, which was spun off from the 2016 presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and has led the largest outside grassroots mobilization effort for her campaign.

Last year, Turner was a national co-chair for the 2020 Sanders presidential campaign, and she has been a leading voice for progressive issues, including a $15 minimum wage and student loan debt cancelation. She has attracted the support of progressive stars such as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Cori Bush of Missouri, who view her as a like-minded ally who will demand real accountability in Congress.

Brown, who also chairs the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party, has promoted herself as an ally of Biden who would not shift the agenda of the narrow Democratic majority too far to the left. Her more moderate stances have attracted the support of party stalwarts like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking Black lawmaker in Congress.

The race has become increasingly heated in recent weeks, with Brown seeking to use Turner’s national profile against her, portraying the former state lawmaker as a Democrat who wouldn’t be a reliable partner with the White House. Turner has rejected such assertions and recently released a pointed television advertisement that questioned Brown’s ethics.

While some groups have deemed the race as a proxy between moderate and progressive Democrats, the race is much more nuanced on the local level.

Turner and Brown have deep roots in the community, and both have indicated that issues such as poverty and criminal justice reform would be major priorities if elected to office.

Turner spoke to Insider in March and explained the need to combat economic inequities, a huge issue in the Rust Belt district.

“Having one job should definitely be enough and we’ve got to work to make sure that’s the case,” she said. “COVID-19 has only exacerbated social, economic, racial, and environmental fissures, and we need to center poor people and working-class people in a way that gives them a shot to live their measure of the American dream. This is going to require us to see the system through a different lens.”

Polls will close at 7:30 ET.

TYT will have live coverage. Likely Politico, AP, Cleveland.com, and NYT will also cover the race the live. I will post some live links after we open Benny’s Tavern.

Benny's Bar Midtown 2020-11-03 171651.jpg

Benny’s Bar Midtown 2020-11-03 171651.jpg

This also serves as an open thread.

Who do you think he's supporting in the #Ohio11 congressional primary? pic.twitter.com/aGdLVJr27k

— 📸 Bryan Giardinelli (@BreatheNewWinds) August 3, 2021

Bar is open!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged 2021 elections, Bernie Sanders, Brand New Congress, Justice Democrats, Nina Turner, Oh-11, Our Revolution, special election, Squad, The Movement

TGIF Open Thread HH

The Progressive Wing Posted on December 4, 2020 by BennyDecember 4, 2020
Bar is Open.JPG

Bar is Open.JPG

Bar is open for Happy Hour!

Proud of Bernie for turning up the heat on the paltry COVID bill!

Given the enormous economic desperation facing working families in this country today, I can't support this proposal unless it is significantly improved. https://t.co/vTonhWNPjz

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) December 4, 2020

More tweets, news, etc in comments! We got a jukebox going…add your favorite videos!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Bernie Sanders, COVID, Happy Hour, tgif

11/3 Benny’s Bar 1600 Pennsylvania is Open for Election 2020 Night Part 1

The Progressive Wing Posted on November 3, 2020 by BennyNovember 3, 2020

Polls are just about closed in western IN and KY; eastern parts of those states closed at 6pm.

(image attribution: NYT)

Music videos are encouraged, along with tweets, news, jibber-jabber.

Budtenders are available as well!

Bar Wait Person with Mask 2020-07-24 170727.png

Bar Wait Person with Mask 2020-07-24 170727.png

Posted in News, Video | Tagged 2020, Bernie Sanders, Dems, DNC, Donald Trump, General Election, GOP, Joseph Biden, Paula Jean Swearengin, progressive movement, RNC

10/10-11 Weekend News Roundup and Open Thread

The Progressive Wing Posted on October 10, 2020 by BennyOctober 11, 2020

Fix America With Libraries (And Playgrounds and Parks and Rec Centers)

Meanwhile, state and local governments, lacking federal support, are considering deep cuts to budgets and public services. These measures reflect a deep problem in American policy and culture: the systematic undermining of public infrastructure.

When I refer to public infrastructure, I mean something much more expansive than roads and bridges; I mean the full range of goods, services, and investments needed for communities to thrive: physical utilities such as water, parks, and transit; basics such as housing, child care, and health care; and economic safety-net supports such as food stamps and unemployment insurance. But under America’s reigning ideology, public infrastructure like this is seen as costly, inefficient, outdated, and low-quality, while private alternatives are valorized as more dynamic, efficient, and modern. This ideology is also highly racialized. Universal services open to a multiracial public are vilified, coded in dog-whistle politics as an undeserved giveaway to communities of color at the expense of white constituents. The result has been a systematic defunding of public infrastructure since the 1970s.

n an economic score alone, massive investments in public infrastructure would pay off. Every dollar invested in transit infrastructure generates at least $3.70 in returns through new jobs, reduced congestion, and increased productivity, without accounting for the environmental and health benefits. For each dollar invested in early-childhood education, the result is $8.60 worth of economic benefit largely through reductions in crime and poverty. A universal health-care system would save Americans more than $2 trillion in health-care costs (even accounting for the increased public expenditure that would be needed) while securing access to life-saving care for more than 30 million Americans. The fact that federal and state governments fail to make these investments is not a matter of limited resources, but rather of skewed priorities. The 2017 Trump tax cuts of $1.9 trillion sent most of its gains to corporations and the wealthiest Americans; the United States has spent more than $820 billion on the Iraq War since 2003, and hundreds of billions every year to fund the prison-industrial complex.

Any 21st-century civil-rights and economic agenda must involve a massive shift in our public investments. The human cost of the failure to invest in these crucial social goods falls disproportionately on Black and brown communities. In the midst of the current economic crisis, more than a quarter of Black and Latino households report missing their last rent payment, and more than one-fifth of Black and Latino households are food insecure. Our public-investment decisions reflect who and what we value: Too often, the decision to underinvest in public infrastructure has stemmed from a desire to restrict access to those goods and services for people of color, in an attempt to preserve the benefits of public infrastructure for wealthier and whiter communities.

The public provision of certain services, and universal access to them, has been a central fault line in the long quest for economic and racial inclusion—and for democracy. In the 19th century, for example, as the industrial revolution began to transform the economy, local judges and reformers became concerned with the problem of private actors controlling access to new infrastructural services such as water, electricity, or transportation systems. If control remained in private hands, owners could employ arbitrary, profit-driven policies that left individuals and communities utterly dependent on those owners’ benevolence and good will.

The response of reformers was to imagine a radical alternative: public oversight and control of these utilities, if not outright municipalization. This “sewer socialism,” at the state and municipal levels, led to the first electric, water, and transportation utilities. Over time, the idea of the public utility became the forerunner of the modern administrative and regulatory state, as state officials pioneered public-utility regulation over other necessities, including milk, ice, and banking. Practically as soon as public utilities and other public services emerged, they became the heart of the struggle for racial equity. After the Civil War, Congress briefly seized the opportunity to advance a variety of foundational civil-rights provisions. A hostile Supreme Court invalidated these efforts, helping usher in a century of Jim Crow segregation—until the civil-rights movement vindicated the aspiration for desegregation and equal access to public goods.

But even formal desegregation has not assured equitable access to public infrastructure. Governments, usually at the prompting of coalitions of business interests, wealthy Americans, and white voters, have restricted access to these services and systems through a range of other hidden strategies. Austerity and privatization have driven the defunding of public infrastructure—even as wealthier and whiter communities have maintained access to their own private versions of these systems.

Schools are the perfect example: The shift to desegregation after Brown v. Board of Education prompted vociferous efforts by white communities to relocate to more homogenous suburbs, while civil rights made conservative appeals for lower taxes and deregulation more potent as “public” goods came to be seen as racially inclusive goods. More broadly, the rise of conventional anti-government and anti-tax rhetoric has been more politically effective since the late 20th century for this very reason: Corporate interests committed to deregulation made common cause with opponents of desegregation to form a shared anti-government coalition that has powered the modern conservative movement. These measures effectively ensured that wealthier and whiter communities could maintain preferential access to parks, schools, and other municipal infrastructure without sharing them with the wider multiracial public. Meanwhile, the trend toward onerous bureaucratic requirements for enrollment into safety-net programs such as food stamps and unemployment insurance reflects paternalistic and racialized attitudes against beneficiaries of these programs, and has further winnowed away access.

What, then, is the way forward? First, the public needs to broaden its conceptions of public goods and infrastructure. Beyond roads and bridges, reformers should focus on those services and systems that are essential for full-fledged membership and well-being, that expand the capabilities and capacities of individuals and communities, and where leaving the provision in private hands would create too great a risk of exclusion or unfair, arbitrary, and extractive pricing. Concretely, this means focusing on two types of public infrastructure in particular: foundational back-end services such as water, electricity, mail, credit, broadband, and the like; and the safety net and systems for community care, including health care, child care, public schools, and more.

Second, we need to ensure that these infrastructures are, in fact, public. That means subjecting them to stringent regulations ensuring quality, nondiscrimination, fair pricing, and equitable access. It might mean outright public provision—either through a public option as in the health-care debate, or through outright nationalization or municipalization. And it means creating oversight to ensure racial and gender equity in access, just as the Civil Rights Act led to the creation of administrative offices charged with preventing discrimination and resegregation in access to services including hospital health care.

Many reformers and social movements today have advanced proposals that evince this broader recommitment to public infrastructure. In the face of the COVID-19 crisis, the National Domestic Workers Alliance and Caring Across Generations have proposed an “Essential Workers Bill of Rights” to fill gaps in access to the safety net and a broader push to create a public-care infrastructure spanning child care and elder care as part of the new post-pandemic social contract. The Medicare for All debate is fundamentally about public options and the public provision of health care; other advocates have also proposed public options and the public provision of basic banking and credit systems. Critics of big tech, meanwhile, have proposed that information platforms such as Facebook be regulated like public utilities as a way to fight the proliferation of disinformation and extractive data mining, an approach that also addresses some First Amendment concerns about online-speech regulation. The climate-justice movement has, over time, embraced proposals to convert energy utilities into more democratic utilities with mandates for assuring equity.

Inevitably, these proposals will crash into old frames and rhetoric. “Can we afford it?” “How do we know public versions will actually be high quality and effective, instead of corrupt, costly, and hapless?” These ready retorts are more about how deep our anti-public conventional wisdom runs, and less about reality. As the trillions of dollars of crisis spending in the early months of COVID-19 highlights, we have ample resources to fund extensive public infrastructure. The Movement for Black Lives’ demands for defunding the police turn in part on exactly this point: The billions we spent on mass incarceration and the policing of Black and brown communities dwarfs what we spend on positive public infrastructure; radically reallocating our budgetary priorities would transform our economy and society for the better. Nor is the fear of public corruption or failure that compelling: We’ve all seen that the private provision of essential services, including food, health care, and banking, is often predatory, extractive, exclusionary, and not especially efficient. Nevertheless, we should not be Panglossian about the prospects of public provision; real public infrastructure will also require truly democratic, accountable, and responsive administrative bodies.

If we are to survive this crisis—and imagine a more equitable, dynamic economy to come, we must start with a recommitment to the value of universal, inclusive public infrastructure. Tens of millions of Americans currently face homelessness, are unable to put food on the table, and lack access to schools or child care or health care, even as the stock market booms and CEOs like Jeff Bezos gain billions in wealth. Instead, we could have an economy where these public needs are fully funded, securing the health and well-being of millions. That alternative future is still possible—should policy makers choose to make it real.

More news, tweets, analysis, and good opinions in the comments section. See you there! Fly high birdies!

Posted in Activism, Bernie Sanders, grassroots, News, Open Thread | Tagged Bernie Sanders, Down Ballot Candidates

9/28 A Vote to Save Democracy & OT

The Progressive Wing Posted on September 27, 2020 by BennySeptember 28, 2020

 

Last week marked the start of Early Voting in my county. I had applied for a mail-in ballot. Should I wait for the ballot, or maybe just go and see how busy the one polling place open is? Was I ready to make my choice for NOTA or a ticket on the ballot?

All summer I deliberated. I live in a state that will vote blue for the most part. Why should I care now that once again, the DNC handed the nomination on a silver platter to a heavily flawed candidate, this time Joe Biden. Second time in a row. I’m still befuddled how Bernie won the first few states, then lost most of the races after that.

Last Monday, I decided to show some support for a down ballot in my district.  I e-mailed the Dem County party office, and requested a sign.  I got an e-mail saying there was a shortage of signs for a particular candidate (the one running for congress) and would I take another sign instead? They had a dearth of signs until a week ago.

I negotiated instead, making it clear that I live on the edge of a town, and my backyard actually backs up to an avenue where the visibility is good. Moreover, the vote for the person running for the congress seat was crucial to redistricting. I’m glad they didn’t ask if I wanted a Biden Harris sign. Within 2 hours, there was a sign in my yard for Betsy Londrigan. She was not my first choice in the primary, but she almost won last time. The person who wrote me the e-mail took one of the signs from his yard and put it in mine. As it turned out, he was running for an office and was VP of the county party. That indicated to me an “Not me, us” attitude I could get behind.

Clearly, from my numerous criticisms on this site, Biden did not earn my vote, nor did he try to earn other progressives’ votes, other than meeting with them. Like Bernie said recently, if I were young, I’d be very angry.

I am 79, and I am angry.

If I were 18 or 20, I would be veryTwo , very, very angry.

Young people can transform this country. We must do everything we can to ensure they vote in this election. pic.twitter.com/RIeUyphJ2o

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) September 23, 2020

However, I decided to vote in person last Thursday as I made up my mind to go ahead with the deed.  I did vote for the Democratic Party ticket - from POTUS on down to local races. There was one Republican considered for one of the races, but decided just to vote all Dem.  I was very tempted to vote for the Socialist & Liberation party candidate.

I don't expect many birdies to do what I did, but I think we do need to send a signal to Trump and his gross incompetent buddies that he is getting fired for insubordination and domestic terrorism.

Identity politics for electing the highest officer of the federal branch did weigh in just a bit. While I would have preferred Tammy Baldwin, Barbara Lee or Karen Bass for VP choice, I'm hoping that Harris will help Biden bend a bit more if he has truly evolved since the days of that gosh-awful crime bill of 1994.  I also want all girls to be able to look up to someone like Harris, who is the daughter of immigrants. I am concerned that the donor money has already infiltrated her political psyche, but at this point, she's agreed to what the party wants her to do, which is help get the ship turned around. I do think she will help the ticket, even more than when Geraldine Ferraro did in 1984 when she was nominated.  I was thrilled when Ferraro was nominated, but unfortunately, she had a very weak running mate.   Similar situation here, but to be fair to Mondale, Reagan was an effective spokesperson for the GOP.

I'm also hoping Anita Hill will get a judicial bench out of this, or advise on a good selection to choose from judicial nominees. The problem is the Dem party has given away too many picks already instead of fighting for them now.

This SCOTUS nominee is extremely smart, but that doesn't make her any less extreme, it just makes that extremism more dangerous. https://t.co/woOyMKWhHm

— Meteor_Blades (@Meteor_Blades) September 26, 2020

Bernie is right in my mind about the threat to democracy. I'm not voting for Biden. I voted to give Democracy an opportunity to breathe and eventually thrive again, and as a Democratic Socialist, I concluded this was the best choice I could make. It's not about me even though it would have been nice if Biden could have tried more to earn my vote.

Bernie held a town hall on FB about rural issues and voters. I'm glad he's still holding town halls, continuing to gather evidence of a progressive agenda.

Democracy is a requisite to every thing we do as Americans; it must win first. It's hard though because we are all exhausted from COVID, forest fires, and tweets. But I'm still DemExit and will criticize the two major parties in order to raise awareness of issues that crumbs aren't enough to fix. We need a transformative government to streamline major resources to prevent the spread of pandemics and to beat back poverty. We pay their salaries and they should be accountable to us.

pic.twitter.com/yLAuTK41DM

— Rodney Latstetter 🌹 #LaborParty (@proviewsusa) September 28, 2020

(photo credit: Benny's Bernie 2020 t-shirt) 

That's my beef for now.  More news, tweets, and videos in the comments.  This serves as an open thread.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, open threa.d

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Register

Recent Posts

6/25-26 Weekend News and Open Thread

June 25, 2022 10:30 am | By Benny | 82 comments

6/23-24 News Roundup and Open Thread

June 23, 2022 9:59 am | By jcitybone | 74 comments

6/20-22 News Roundup and Open Thread

June 20, 2022 10:32 pm | By jcitybone | 47 comments

6/17-19 News Roundup and Open Thread

June 17, 2022 8:00 am | By jcitybone | 31 comments

Open Threads 6.14-16

June 14, 2022 9:11 am | By orlbucfan | 39 comments

6/13-14 Open Thread – Bernie Sanders, Lindsey Graham face off on Fox

June 13, 2022 12:51 pm | By LieparDestin | 12 comments

6/10-12 Weekend News Roundup and Open Thread

June 10, 2022 7:38 am | By jcitybone | 111 comments

6/8-9 News Roundup and Open Thread

June 8, 2022 7:49 am | By jcitybone | 99 comments

6/6-7 Open Thread

June 6, 2022 7:08 pm | By Benny | 38 comments

6/3-5 Weekend News & Open Thread

June 3, 2022 8:47 am | By Benny | 49 comments

Recent Comments

  • orlbucfan on 6/25-26 Weekend News and Open Thread
  • jcitybone on 6/25-26 Weekend News and Open Thread
  • wi64 on 6/25-26 Weekend News and Open Thread
  • magsview on 6/25-26 Weekend News and Open Thread
  • magsview on 6/25-26 Weekend News and Open Thread
  • magsview on 6/25-26 Weekend News and Open Thread
  • magsview on 6/25-26 Weekend News and Open Thread
  • Aint Supposed to Die A Natural Death on 6/25-26 Weekend News and Open Thread

2022 Progressive Candidates

The Squad

  • Jamaal Bowman (NY-16) – Profile – August 23, 2022
  • Cori Bush (MO-01) – Profile – August 2, 2022
  • Mondaire Jones (NY-10) – Profile – August 23, 2022
  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) – Profile – August 23, 2022
  • Ilhan Omar (MN-05) – August 9, 2022
  • Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) – September 6, 2022
  • Rashida Tlaib (MI-12) – Profile – August 2, 2022

House

  • Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04) – June 28, 2022
  • Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) – August 2, 2022
  • Ro Khanna (CA-17) – GENERAL
  • Summer Lee (PA-12) – GENERAL
  • Mark Pocan (WI-02) – August 9, 2022

Senate

  • Charles Booker (KY) – GENERAL
  • John Fetterman (PA) – GENERAL
  • Raphael Warnock (GA) – GENERAL

 

State & Local Races

  • Anna Eskamani (FL-HD-47) – August 23, 2022
  • Christina Jones (Raleigh, NC City Council District E) – GENERAL

Search TPW

Archives

©2022 - The Progressive Wing
↑