Home | About | Donate

Sanders Surge Panics Washington Establishment


Sanders Surge Panics Washington Establishment

Brent Budowsky

Virtually the entire Washington and Wall Street establishments are now in a state of panic about the possibility of a Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) victory in the Iowa Democratic caucus next Monday.

The Sanders revolution of young people, which includes a growing number of young women, independent workers in some labor unions that refuse to go along with the establishment, and liberal populists and idealists of all varieties, is now within striking distance of stunning the political world with upset victories in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary.


Let's return the country to a nation rather than a for profit corporation. Bernie has tapped into many of the problems and is offering paid for solutions. The business model of government had its greatest failure with the "MBA" president. Populism, genuine and earnest in character, has returned.


If nothing else, Sanders exposes corporate Dems and their media for the anti-progressive creeps they really are. Hopefully the cleansing fire that began with Occupy will sweep the country.


Far too kind to corporate/Wall Street tool Hillary, she of the taking millions of Dollars of their money and lying about still being for oversight and criminal prosecution of their crooks. What a load of hooey. Please tell the awful truth about Shillary and Slick Willie at every turn (and their hedge fund running son-in-law as well). The Clintons are so owned by the Wall St. elite they probably call them "Massa" when they are in rooms alone with them.


"The Post's editorial page ardently supported the Iraq War that Sanders (and I) opposed." Yes. And I'm fed up listening to arguments--not yours Budowsky--about Clinton being better on foreign policy. She is not, and this decision is the clearest example of Senator Sanders' superior judgment and leadership abilities.

Senator Sanders not only opposed the war but gave an exact prediction of the consequences of such a war. Predictions that turned out to be 100% accurate. From October 22, 2002:

"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 ofIraq 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."


This is a solid analysis, apart from this... is it necessary for political survival?... homage to the would-be Queen-to-be:

"Clinton offers great possibilities of becoming a great president if she is nominated, and her campaign should be singing her praises and not letting her advocates attack long-held policies, visions and dreams of the Democratic base that in many ways embody the core of the Democratic vision for America."


Thank you, "Small is," for posting the quotes direct from Sanders. It certainly puts the assertions made by Alligatorhardt (and/or Flapdoodle) and his anti-Sanders comrades into perspective as they use invectives to argue that Sanders is as much a war-hawk as is Clinton (not to mention the Republican dangerous clown show where everyone thinks "bombing nations back to the stone age" is appropriate 21st century behavior. And these cons have the nerve to stamp their bloodlust with Jesus' name!)


I wonder if anyone on the Washington Post staff has ever been to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, or Germany ? Maybe we should offer them a couple of cranes and forklifts to help them crawl out from under their Washington rocks ... or excavate a bigger exit from their D.C. caves ...


That one debate where the Republicans were debating whether they would be able to make 'tough decisions like carpet bombing children'. That chilled me to the marrow. Then there was something about making the desert 'glow'--that this type of discourse can even be held openly is obscene.

As for the contrast between Hillary and Bernie on war matters, Laura Flanders said it perfectly (didn't she?) in her article published yesterday here on CD "Who Cares if Hillary is Warm? I Care About Her Wars"


Seeing how the WaPo staff takes their orders from Captain Jeff in Seattle, it doesn't matter if they have been to Scandanavia. They saw what Bezos did to their moderate left of center colleague.


Recall during the March 2010 vote to approve Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA), then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi telling Congress they "need to vote for the ACA so we can see what is in it".

Now Brent tells us that the hypocritical Pelosi is mocking Bernie's Medicare for All proposal when she promoted the ACA corporate welfare program that she never even read.


One of the supreme ironies of this campaign is the irony of youth. The Bernie campaign is made up of the young, the not so young, and the young-old, Bernie himself. Hillary and the Republicans appeal to old-young, i.e., the Peter Beinarts, Ta Nehisi Coates, Ezra Kleins, and Rachel Maddows of the establishment, and simply the old in spirit, the Paul Krugmans, Nancy Pelosi's et. al. Let's hear it from Jimmy, and on to victory in November:


Another thing panics the oligarchy is that if Clinton doesn't win the nomination then all those women voters that supported her will shift over to Sanders and give him a resounding win over the clown car.


Bernie's surge should make every Democrat think long and hard. Congress is essentially a cross-section of America, and Bernie sits at the absolute far left end of that spectrum, common sense says that's never a good place to be when you are running in a general election where centrist thinking rules out. Incrementalism may not be sexy and won't fill the house, but it is what actually makes change. Should the GOP regain it's senses and move away from their political extreme when nominating their candidate, they would win a general election. In the end, the good should not be the enemy of the perfect here.


If Clinton doesn't win the nomination, you are correct, Bernie will no doubt pick up most HRC voters and that is exactly why the economic elite and their Wall Street stooge will do everything in their corrupt power to see to it that; that does not happen!


"Incrementalism may not be sexy and won't fill the house, but it is what actually makes change."

Sure, except empirically and historically that's blatantly false.

Sure, the New Deal was won incrementally by "realists," not by the "political extreme." Oops...

You're just wrong.


Had Obama pushed for single payer it would not have passed, as it was the ACA was a fight and passed by the narrowest of margins and has just survived two close calls by the Supreme Court. But because Obama fought for what was possible, not what was ideal, 17 million people now have healthcare. Should a Republican win in November, the veto pen that saved it a few weeks ago would no longer be there. Nor would what regulations that were enacted by Dodd Frank survive, nor would the Bush tax cuts have been allowed to expire, and I could go on. The needle moves slowly, but it does move in the right direction when a Democrat is in power.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Thanks Brent, ever on the case for change we desperately need. As you write, the issues Sanders champions are American issues, they are not just for the 1%, they are for the people, the 99%, and he speaks on those critical issues with clarity, strength and integrity - there is a feeling by the disenfranchised and belief that Sanders message is spreading beyond the control of the establishment, that this time we may make a real difference!

I hope the weather in Iowa will hold out until after the caucuses Monday, there is a snow storm of 5-8 inches forecast that may hold off till Tuesday, we'll see. As Bernie said, we need a large turnout to cement the win - he also said "politics is not a spectator sport" and the people in Iowa will have to tough it out and rally for Bernie. Be safe all!



"Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi is running true to form.