I’ve been wondering, with all the back and forth this Democratic race has offered on dKos, why there is so little consideration of the abilities of Sen. Sanders to actually govern as President. After all, once elected, to make his agenda into law a President has to be communicator, negotiator, delegator as well as Commander in Chief.
I’m not confident that the Senator is up for the task. If there is a President Sanders inaugurated next January, my only question will be the name of the Republican ideologue who replaces him in four years. Because I’ve already seen the preview of a Sanders administration.
In my youth I was inspired by Jimmy Carter, a good and honest man, former Naval officer, Governor, outsider, and was overjoyed when he defeated the unelected President Ford. Then I spent the next four years trying to rationalize his failure to advance his agenda, his constant struggles with Democrats and Republicans, and then eventually hoping against hope as he waged a half-hearted reelection campaign. I was saddened that even Democrats had no stomach to continue to work with him, paid lip service to reelect him, and then embraced the B-list actor Reagan in his place.
Those of you who read my very first diary know that I have serious reservations about Sen. Sanders as a Presidential nominee. I don’t have to go over those reasons again. But with the developments on the Republican side over the last month, perhaps I was being too generous to the capability of the GOP to run a successful Presidential campaign. With their party in disarray, and the possibility of a split or third party, perhaps Sen. Sanders, even with the attack ads against him, may prevail.
Of course this would mean that he defied the odds and won the Democratic nomination. Have stranger things happened?
I submit to you that we already have several data points as to how Sen. Sanders would govern while in the Oval Office. Now that he is getting some serious media coverage, not just admiring puff pieces and softball interviews, the true Bernie Sanders is emerging.
The first data point has been in plain view for years — Sen. Sanders (I) is running as a Democrat, even though he professes contempt and disdain towards the vehicle he wants to ride into the Presidency. You think he considers himself so ideologically pure that he resists tarnishing his name with that dreaded (D) after it? He once said “my own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt,” and added “they have no ideology, their ideology is opportunism” (emphasis mine). It is informative that now Sen. Sanders is taking this opportunity to run as a Democrat within that same “ideologically bankrupt” party? Does this not demonstrate a certain plasticity of conviction on his part, to put it mildly? So he’s a politician after all?
There is this report that says he would run in the future as a Democrat. His Senate webpage still calls him an Independent. So which is it, (D) or (I)?
A little more about that vehicle, the Democratic Party, and those who call themselves Democrats. If given the duck test (if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck), Sen. Sanders is a waddling, quacking Democrat. The Vermont Democratic Party offers him sporadic token opposition, he’s a member of the Democratic caucus, and votes Democratic more often than the average Democrat. Why straddle the fence?
Answer — Because it gives him the veneer of respectability, access to his probable voters through the DNC database, national media exposure through debates and publicity during caucuses and primaries. It’s worked like a charm so far. See this article for more proof.
I think it was an extraordinarily gracious act for the Democratic Party to have even allowed Sen. Sanders to compete for the nomination. It is one thing to tolerate his penchant for the (I), as long as he waddles the waddle. CW was that his would be a protest candidacy, a la Ron Paul. Now that he has more than token support (45%), I can imagine that many Democrat PLEO’s are thankful for their 714 votes at the Convention. If he is going to represent the Party, he’s going to have to convince the Party elders and the elected officials that have “skin in the game”, that he can also represent them and help them win in November.
It doesn’t help that he is not raising money for downticket Democrats. When he says "we'll see", that doesn’t exactly sound like a desire to help elect more Democrats.
Which brings us to the second data point — the obvious and embarassing dearth of endorsements for Sen. Sanders, something that the media is content to ignore. If he is indeed the “Amendment King”, proficient at working both sides of the aisle, why aren’t more Democratic lawmakers flocking to endorse him? Aside from eight House members, he has no endorsements from Senators and Governors. Why is that?
Read this article, written by an editor with experience dealing with Bernie Sanders through the years. “Rude, short-tempered and, occasionally, downright hostile.” If this is at all accurate, you have your answer. Can that ideologically “pious, self-righteous and utterly humorless” personality be a factor in the number of endorsements from elected Democrats?
The penchant for ideology above the good of the people is borne out by two well-known and discussed stances that Sen. Sanders has taken. First is the auto bailout. While he did vote for the auto bailout bill which failed, he did not vote for the second tranche of TARP, which supplied the money that saved the industry. It was clear that several senators in favor of the auto bailout voted for the second tranche for that very reason. But Sen. Sanders was not fine with that. If the auto industry went under, so be it, as long as the banks didn’t get any more money to stay solvent. For Sen. Sanders, the symbolic vote for an auto bailout was enough.
Second is Sen. Sanders’ stance on the Export-Import Bank. Even though this export credit agency has helped thousands of U.S. companies export goods, is self-funding, makes a small profit and is copied around the world, Sen. Sanders would like to see it de-chartered in the U.S. because most of the loan guarantees go to big companies. He calls it the “Bank of Boeing”. No matter that it helps thousands of small companies as well, they can go pound sand because no-one should be helping Boeing export airplanes! Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It’s showing on the campaign trail as well. Now that he is past the honeymoon stage of this race, he’s being given some tough questions. I hope you read or listen to the sit-down he had with the Daily News. He didn’t come off well, and very nearly lost it when pressed on his talking points. He had problems with basic questions about his positions, something that the Daily News easily exposed. You would think Sen. Sanders would have all the answers, after all, he’s been in Congress for 26 years. Surely there has been time to formulate the roadmap for the first 100 days?
On the heels of the interview was Disqualified-gate. Was he rattled by a CNN correspondent saying the Clinton campaign objective was to now disqualify him (without any direct quotations)? Followed by the Morning Joe interview, where Sec. Clinton refused to take the bait and utter the D-word? But the tipping point was a headline in the WaPo, again without direct quotes, leading to this whopper.
“She [Hillary Clinton] has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote unquote, not qualified to be president.”
Of course we all know what “quote unquote” means, and the coverage even shows the Senator giving air quotes. And we all know that Sec. Clinton had NOT “been saying” (not even once) those words. Maybe implied, for sure she said “let the voters decide”, that’s par for the course. This ain’t beanbag, folks, Sen. Sanders knows how the game is played, and he blew it.
Eventually Sen. Sanders thought better of it, and Sec. Clinton laughed it off. She was already riding the NYC subway, while Sen. Sanders was still looking for a token.
Then there was the Vatican-Pope thing. Puffing it up on The View, of course having to walk it back, not invited by the Pope, not meeting with the Pope, but he will give a 15 minute speech. Right before the New York primary? This smacks of a campaign move, a somewhat desperate one at that. Have the candidate lose two days of campaigning right before the primary? For 15 minutes? What was Sen. Sanders thinking? If this had happened to any other candidate, the invitation would have been politely declined, with a press release and a request for a raincheck.
Although Sen. Sanders supporters may want to pass off this past week as an aberration, I think it exposes a much more systemic problem with the candidate rather than the campaign.