See this web page, formed by people who want U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont to run for President in 2012.
Comments
“Draft Bernie” Committee Wants Senator Sanders to Run for President — 26 Comments
I like and admire Bernie Sanders’ achievements as an Independent, but he’d get about as far as a presidential candidate as did Ralph Nader.
#1: You like populism, and you admire Bernie Sanders, a self-admitted socialist. So does that mean that you’re a populist socialist (or a socialist populist)?
Sanders must think Obama is “too conservative.” If he runs as an independent or third party candidate, he will take votes that would otherwise go to Obama (assuming that Obama is the Dem nominee). Of course, if he does oppose the Dem nominee, Sanders will run the risk of being stripped of his seniority by the Dem caucus.
At least Bernie’s honest. Most socialists try to hide the excrement in the chocolate ice cream.
Sanders’s US Senate seat is up in 2012. I don’t see him giving up that seat for a presidential run that would have little hope of success (assuming that it’s now illegal, maybe he can get the Vermont legislature to change the law so that he can run for senator and president simultaneously).
Personally, I hope a credible leftist like Russ Feingold runs against Obama in the Dem primaries. That would force Obama to take more radical positions to defend his left flank, which would make him less electable in November.
Seriously? People want to elect Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist? Of course, if people want to elect Obama then they are electing another socialist.
I bet that Obama is hiding scared in the oval office, saying “Ohmygawsh, Bernie Sanders is running! Aaah!” NOT.
Go Bernie Go stir those progressive democrats up and Bernie is a natural born citizen –assuming he was born after both his parents were naturalized US immigrant citizens.
and non nbc Obama may very well finally simply walk away from office before the next scheduled State of the Union presentation before a joint session of the new congress.
#2 Russ Feingold vs your Pretty Boy Romney. Ha! I would love to see that match-up.
I don’t see him challenging Obama and honestly I want to see him keeping his Senate seat. I also want Nader to BEAT Lieberman.
Feingold is much more likely to go after Obama since he lost his seat.
EVERY Donkey Prez candidate since Roosevelt in 1932 has NOT been liberal – socialist – communist enough ???
See the circa $ 16 TRILLION government debts (NOT including projected debts) — due to both the left / right socialist special interest loot- the- treasury gangs since 1929 —
— due to the ANTI-Democracy indirect minority rule gerrymander systems in all the major regimes.
1/2 votes in 1/2 gerrymander districts = 1/4 control (left or right) — worse before the 1964 SCOTUS gerrymander cases — i.e. ALL of the elections in 1788-1962 — a mere 174 years of accumulated ROT.
P.R. and App.V.
#6: Feingold won’t be the Democratic nominee.
I don’t know who the Republican nominee WILL be, but it definitely WON’T be Romney. The GOP won’t nominate someone from Taxachusetts, and, before there was Obamacare, there was Romneycare.
Steve Rankin: You don’t read my emails closely. I said “I admire Bernie Sanders’ accomplishments as an Independent.” I didn’t say I admired his “political objective” accomplishments. Only that he was able to do it outside the two major parties as an “Independent.”
By the way, Senator Sanders does hold some “populist” positions, and I do support these. I do not support his doctrinnaire “socialist” doctrines.
If baffles you and others that one can be a “Populist” and still be Pro-Life, Pro-Family and at the same time support Health Care and Social Security.
The problem with you stereotyped “Democrats,” “Republicans,” “Liberals,” and “Conservatives” is that you think one must ahere to a doctrinnal rubics or liturgy and cannot divert from it one iota.
How sad you are all so “close-minded.”
While Bernie Sanders calls himself a “socialist” now and then, he would actually be a very right-wing social-democrat in Europe or anywhere else in the world.
#10: Sanders functions as a Democrat in Washington. He’s building seniority with the Democratic Party.
I admire Sanders’s honesty about being a socialist, as I’ve said before. That’s about all I like about him.
Your last three paragraphs are way, way off the mark.
#10 — MORE or LESS statism —
6,000 plus years of political W-A-R
P.R. and App.V. — with lots more secession regimes — to try and exist with their left/right control freak statism.
If he were to become a candidate for president, Senator Bernie Sanders would certainly become the early, easy, favorite for winning Califorina’s Peace and Freedom Party Primary Election. With that being said, though, one must realize that he is not a candidate at this point in time and other possible strong candidates will probably emerge in the near future, also. One name already being mentioned is Cindy Sheehan (although it would help her cause if she actually joined our Party). Naturally, Ralph Nader would be strong again, too – if he has any desire to make another race.
By the way, Senator Sanders is a socialist by admission (and an electoral independent); President Barack Obama says that he is capitalist and he also happens to be the head of the largest and strongest capitalist political party in the world – the Democratic Party. How some people can be confused about these facts is pretty amazing. It is not surprising, though. Just check out Murphy’s Law Number 8: “By making something absolutely clear, somebody will be confused.”
To Steve Rankin (#2 above): Your statement insulting socialists is very typical of the behavior of so many Republicans these days (i.e., when they start losing a debate on the merits, that is when they resort to the worst personal insults). Of course, that is one of the major reasons why the GOP will be a minor-sized party by the year 2016.
Bernie Sanders has been running for president since he first go elected to congress! He would only take his home state of Vermont, however he would get a got of votes in other states (Could he run for both President and Senator in Vermont?) He would take more votes from the Democrats and give the November election to….Sarah!! (Paragraph) Go, Bernie, Go!
The Bush I and Bush II folks would LOVE to have Sanders on the ballots = Divide and Conquer the leftwing statists in the marginal 2012 gerrymander Electoral College battleground States.
See Florida 2000 — Bush v. Gore — due to NADER.
8 years of INSANE U.S.A. regime economics and undeclared wars.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
To Steve Rankin (#12 above):
It does not seem to me that “An Alabama Independent” is off the mark at all. What he (my guess is that the write is male) wrote (#10 above, the last three paragraphs) appears to be “right on the money.”
Phil Sawyer. Thanks for coming to my defense, but perhaps Steve Rankin is right that my very LAST paragraph (sentence) was a little “off the mark.”
However, I still stand by my two next to last paragraphs. There are millions of Americans – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – who know and understand we cannot have a doctrinnaire government in Washington or in any of our states. We are not Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.
We have to take the issues “one by one.” If a “liberal” solution will work with one issue, and a “consevative” solution will work with another issue, then this is how we solve our problems.
But unfortunately doctrinnaire 3rd parties will never understand this. And this is why the American people will never elect them to power.
It baffles you and others that one can be a “Populist” and still be Pro-Life, Pro-Family and at the same time support Health Care and Social Security.
The problem with you stereotyped “Democrats,” “Republicans,” “Liberals,” and “Conservatives” is that you think one must ahere to a doctrinnal rubics or liturgy and cannot divert from it one iota.
graphs as I wrote them.
Sorry about the “out of order” re-printing of comments from the previous email post. I had copied and pasted for reference, and forgot to erase.
You are welcome, “An Alabama Independent.” While I am trying to get along with Republicans in the same way that I try to be on good terms with most people in general, I have noticed an alarming escalation in negative rhetoric from too many GOP partisans these days (and it started well before the “Tea Party” movement). So, it seemed that I should say something about it. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is not the only party with this problem, though. It seems to be all over the map now days.
# 20 Gee the NET tax WAR escalates in the U.S.A.
The NET tax payers (aka Tax Slaves) and Savers versus the NET tax getters — welfare, govt officers (high to low), govt contractors and interest getters gangs [who get the tax money and borrowed govt money put into their pockets].
How many regimes have collapsed in the LONG history of Tax WARS — going back at least 6,000 plus years ???
— i.e. the Tax Slaves REVOLT and destroy the regime.
See 1789 in France especially.
For the record Bernie Sanders is a socialist by deed and word. He was a presidental elector for the Socialist Workers Party and one of his heroes is Eugene Debs. There are three questions left to ask: Is he interested in running? It is as a Democrat or an Independent? Can he run for both president and senator?
#18: “If baffles you and others that one can be a “Populist” and still be Pro-Life, Pro-Family and at the same time support Health Care and Social Security.”
I’m not at all baffled by populism, of which there are several strains. Pat Buchanan, e. g., is a populist who is for all the things you listed except for “health care,” by which I assume you mean Obama’s socialized medicine scheme.
#18: “The problem with you stereotyped “Democrats,” “Republicans,” “Liberals,” and “Conservatives” is that you think one must ahere to a doctrinnal rubics or liturgy and cannot divert from it one iota.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “a doctrinnal (sic) rubics or liturgy.” The US has certainly been governed by doctrinaire far leftists for the last two years, but, hopefully, that will change in January.
You err in trying to stereotype me. FYI: I am a conservative with a healthy dose of libertarianism. I have not voted for a major party presidential nominee since 1984. I’ll be happy to give you my position on specific issues.
My state does not register voters by party, but if it did, I would likely register as an independent.
As for social security: The system cannot be sustained in its present form. Younger workers– those under age 50 or 55– are going to have to be given the option of putting part of their contributions into the private market. Otherwise, there will be no benefits for anybody. Sadly, the Democrats have demonstrated that they’re more interested in scaring senior citizens than in strenghtening social security. The system nearly collapsed in the early ’80s, before Reagan, the Republican-controlled Senate, and the Democratic-controlled House “saved” it with a big tax increase.
Phil #14: You, like Bernie Sanders, are honest about being a socialist, so you’re not included in my characterization. If Obama had told the voters in 2008 that he was going to govern as he has, he would have lost in a landslide. This is still a right-of-center nation.
You keep moving back your predicted date for the demise of the Republican Party, Phil. I suppose, in a couple of years, you’ll change it to 2020.
To Steve Rankin (#23 above):
President Barack Obama is a capitalist and a centrist Democrat and he is governing from the center. I am not sure if our country is “right-of-center” (as you wrote) or not, anymore. It most likely depends on what issue a person wants to bring up. If this is a “right-of-center” country, then we need to change that as soon as possible. I know that my state, California, is very centrist, for the most part. By the way, trying to make the Social Security system better by opening it up to private market experimentation would be the worst possible thing to do to it.
The reason that I moved my prediction date (for the Republican Party to become a minor-sized party) is because of the fact that it did so well in the elections in most of the country outside of California. I did not predict the “demise” of the GOP, by the way. I just think that it will shrink to “minor-party” status. The “writing is on the wall” and “the truth is out there.” People just need to “wake up and smell the coffee” and they will be able to see it all very clearly.
It is SOOOOOO very easy to take the assets and income of folks and give them to some body else.
6,000 plus years of statism — by minority rule oligarchs (often having monarch figureheads) versus democratic (small d) majorities.
However see the total bankruptcy in the CA regime due to various brainwashing efforts regarding added CA regime debts for various bond schemes in the CA constitution and laws.
Guv. S. is getting out — see incoming Guv. B in CA — very good luck to him in having an economic collapse in CA — likely to have MAJOR efforts by rightwing inland counties to secede from the leftwing coast counties.
Quite possible on a larger scale by groups of States – N, S, E and W.
#24: I can see how a good commie like you would consider Obama to be a “centrist Democrat.” Are Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, and Al Sharpton also “centrists”? I suppose Bill Clinton, Algore, and John Kerry are reactionaries?
Obama is, in my view, definitely a socialist. The only question is whether he’s a communist (as Alan Keyes says he is). One of his mentors was Frank Marshall Davis, an admitted communist. Another was Saul Alinsky, who was definitely a socialist and likely a communist (author of ‘Rules for Radicals’).
What would you do to preserve social security, Phil? With the oldest baby boomers turning 65 next month, something will need to be done. I suggest that you google “social security, Galveston County, Texas” to see how a retirement plan works that invests in private instruments. Galveston County and two other south Texas counties took advantage of a window of opportunity to opt out of the Social Security program in the early ’80s.
Which party are you predicting will replace the Republicans as the second major party?
I like and admire Bernie Sanders’ achievements as an Independent, but he’d get about as far as a presidential candidate as did Ralph Nader.
#1: You like populism, and you admire Bernie Sanders, a self-admitted socialist. So does that mean that you’re a populist socialist (or a socialist populist)?
Sanders must think Obama is “too conservative.” If he runs as an independent or third party candidate, he will take votes that would otherwise go to Obama (assuming that Obama is the Dem nominee). Of course, if he does oppose the Dem nominee, Sanders will run the risk of being stripped of his seniority by the Dem caucus.
At least Bernie’s honest. Most socialists try to hide the excrement in the chocolate ice cream.
Sanders’s US Senate seat is up in 2012. I don’t see him giving up that seat for a presidential run that would have little hope of success (assuming that it’s now illegal, maybe he can get the Vermont legislature to change the law so that he can run for senator and president simultaneously).
Personally, I hope a credible leftist like Russ Feingold runs against Obama in the Dem primaries. That would force Obama to take more radical positions to defend his left flank, which would make him less electable in November.
Seriously? People want to elect Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist? Of course, if people want to elect Obama then they are electing another socialist.
I bet that Obama is hiding scared in the oval office, saying “Ohmygawsh, Bernie Sanders is running! Aaah!” NOT.
Go Bernie Go stir those progressive democrats up and Bernie is a natural born citizen –assuming he was born after both his parents were naturalized US immigrant citizens.
and non nbc Obama may very well finally simply walk away from office before the next scheduled State of the Union presentation before a joint session of the new congress.
#2 Russ Feingold vs your Pretty Boy Romney. Ha! I would love to see that match-up.
I don’t see him challenging Obama and honestly I want to see him keeping his Senate seat. I also want Nader to BEAT Lieberman.
Feingold is much more likely to go after Obama since he lost his seat.
EVERY Donkey Prez candidate since Roosevelt in 1932 has NOT been liberal – socialist – communist enough ???
See the circa $ 16 TRILLION government debts (NOT including projected debts) — due to both the left / right socialist special interest loot- the- treasury gangs since 1929 —
— due to the ANTI-Democracy indirect minority rule gerrymander systems in all the major regimes.
1/2 votes in 1/2 gerrymander districts = 1/4 control (left or right) — worse before the 1964 SCOTUS gerrymander cases — i.e. ALL of the elections in 1788-1962 — a mere 174 years of accumulated ROT.
P.R. and App.V.
#6: Feingold won’t be the Democratic nominee.
I don’t know who the Republican nominee WILL be, but it definitely WON’T be Romney. The GOP won’t nominate someone from Taxachusetts, and, before there was Obamacare, there was Romneycare.
Steve Rankin: You don’t read my emails closely. I said “I admire Bernie Sanders’ accomplishments as an Independent.” I didn’t say I admired his “political objective” accomplishments. Only that he was able to do it outside the two major parties as an “Independent.”
By the way, Senator Sanders does hold some “populist” positions, and I do support these. I do not support his doctrinnaire “socialist” doctrines.
If baffles you and others that one can be a “Populist” and still be Pro-Life, Pro-Family and at the same time support Health Care and Social Security.
The problem with you stereotyped “Democrats,” “Republicans,” “Liberals,” and “Conservatives” is that you think one must ahere to a doctrinnal rubics or liturgy and cannot divert from it one iota.
How sad you are all so “close-minded.”
While Bernie Sanders calls himself a “socialist” now and then, he would actually be a very right-wing social-democrat in Europe or anywhere else in the world.
#10: Sanders functions as a Democrat in Washington. He’s building seniority with the Democratic Party.
I admire Sanders’s honesty about being a socialist, as I’ve said before. That’s about all I like about him.
Your last three paragraphs are way, way off the mark.
#10 — MORE or LESS statism —
6,000 plus years of political W-A-R
P.R. and App.V. — with lots more secession regimes — to try and exist with their left/right control freak statism.
If he were to become a candidate for president, Senator Bernie Sanders would certainly become the early, easy, favorite for winning Califorina’s Peace and Freedom Party Primary Election. With that being said, though, one must realize that he is not a candidate at this point in time and other possible strong candidates will probably emerge in the near future, also. One name already being mentioned is Cindy Sheehan (although it would help her cause if she actually joined our Party). Naturally, Ralph Nader would be strong again, too – if he has any desire to make another race.
By the way, Senator Sanders is a socialist by admission (and an electoral independent); President Barack Obama says that he is capitalist and he also happens to be the head of the largest and strongest capitalist political party in the world – the Democratic Party. How some people can be confused about these facts is pretty amazing. It is not surprising, though. Just check out Murphy’s Law Number 8: “By making something absolutely clear, somebody will be confused.”
To Steve Rankin (#2 above): Your statement insulting socialists is very typical of the behavior of so many Republicans these days (i.e., when they start losing a debate on the merits, that is when they resort to the worst personal insults). Of course, that is one of the major reasons why the GOP will be a minor-sized party by the year 2016.
Bernie Sanders has been running for president since he first go elected to congress! He would only take his home state of Vermont, however he would get a got of votes in other states (Could he run for both President and Senator in Vermont?) He would take more votes from the Democrats and give the November election to….Sarah!! (Paragraph) Go, Bernie, Go!
The Bush I and Bush II folks would LOVE to have Sanders on the ballots = Divide and Conquer the leftwing statists in the marginal 2012 gerrymander Electoral College battleground States.
See Florida 2000 — Bush v. Gore — due to NADER.
8 years of INSANE U.S.A. regime economics and undeclared wars.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
To Steve Rankin (#12 above):
It does not seem to me that “An Alabama Independent” is off the mark at all. What he (my guess is that the write is male) wrote (#10 above, the last three paragraphs) appears to be “right on the money.”
Phil Sawyer. Thanks for coming to my defense, but perhaps Steve Rankin is right that my very LAST paragraph (sentence) was a little “off the mark.”
However, I still stand by my two next to last paragraphs. There are millions of Americans – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – who know and understand we cannot have a doctrinnaire government in Washington or in any of our states. We are not Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.
We have to take the issues “one by one.” If a “liberal” solution will work with one issue, and a “consevative” solution will work with another issue, then this is how we solve our problems.
But unfortunately doctrinnaire 3rd parties will never understand this. And this is why the American people will never elect them to power.
It baffles you and others that one can be a “Populist” and still be Pro-Life, Pro-Family and at the same time support Health Care and Social Security.
The problem with you stereotyped “Democrats,” “Republicans,” “Liberals,” and “Conservatives” is that you think one must ahere to a doctrinnal rubics or liturgy and cannot divert from it one iota.
graphs as I wrote them.
Sorry about the “out of order” re-printing of comments from the previous email post. I had copied and pasted for reference, and forgot to erase.
You are welcome, “An Alabama Independent.” While I am trying to get along with Republicans in the same way that I try to be on good terms with most people in general, I have noticed an alarming escalation in negative rhetoric from too many GOP partisans these days (and it started well before the “Tea Party” movement). So, it seemed that I should say something about it. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is not the only party with this problem, though. It seems to be all over the map now days.
# 20 Gee the NET tax WAR escalates in the U.S.A.
The NET tax payers (aka Tax Slaves) and Savers versus the NET tax getters — welfare, govt officers (high to low), govt contractors and interest getters gangs [who get the tax money and borrowed govt money put into their pockets].
How many regimes have collapsed in the LONG history of Tax WARS — going back at least 6,000 plus years ???
— i.e. the Tax Slaves REVOLT and destroy the regime.
See 1789 in France especially.
For the record Bernie Sanders is a socialist by deed and word. He was a presidental elector for the Socialist Workers Party and one of his heroes is Eugene Debs. There are three questions left to ask: Is he interested in running? It is as a Democrat or an Independent? Can he run for both president and senator?
#18: “If baffles you and others that one can be a “Populist” and still be Pro-Life, Pro-Family and at the same time support Health Care and Social Security.”
I’m not at all baffled by populism, of which there are several strains. Pat Buchanan, e. g., is a populist who is for all the things you listed except for “health care,” by which I assume you mean Obama’s socialized medicine scheme.
#18: “The problem with you stereotyped “Democrats,” “Republicans,” “Liberals,” and “Conservatives” is that you think one must ahere to a doctrinnal rubics or liturgy and cannot divert from it one iota.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “a doctrinnal (sic) rubics or liturgy.” The US has certainly been governed by doctrinaire far leftists for the last two years, but, hopefully, that will change in January.
You err in trying to stereotype me. FYI: I am a conservative with a healthy dose of libertarianism. I have not voted for a major party presidential nominee since 1984. I’ll be happy to give you my position on specific issues.
My state does not register voters by party, but if it did, I would likely register as an independent.
As for social security: The system cannot be sustained in its present form. Younger workers– those under age 50 or 55– are going to have to be given the option of putting part of their contributions into the private market. Otherwise, there will be no benefits for anybody. Sadly, the Democrats have demonstrated that they’re more interested in scaring senior citizens than in strenghtening social security. The system nearly collapsed in the early ’80s, before Reagan, the Republican-controlled Senate, and the Democratic-controlled House “saved” it with a big tax increase.
Phil #14: You, like Bernie Sanders, are honest about being a socialist, so you’re not included in my characterization. If Obama had told the voters in 2008 that he was going to govern as he has, he would have lost in a landslide. This is still a right-of-center nation.
You keep moving back your predicted date for the demise of the Republican Party, Phil. I suppose, in a couple of years, you’ll change it to 2020.
To Steve Rankin (#23 above):
President Barack Obama is a capitalist and a centrist Democrat and he is governing from the center. I am not sure if our country is “right-of-center” (as you wrote) or not, anymore. It most likely depends on what issue a person wants to bring up. If this is a “right-of-center” country, then we need to change that as soon as possible. I know that my state, California, is very centrist, for the most part. By the way, trying to make the Social Security system better by opening it up to private market experimentation would be the worst possible thing to do to it.
The reason that I moved my prediction date (for the Republican Party to become a minor-sized party) is because of the fact that it did so well in the elections in most of the country outside of California. I did not predict the “demise” of the GOP, by the way. I just think that it will shrink to “minor-party” status. The “writing is on the wall” and “the truth is out there.” People just need to “wake up and smell the coffee” and they will be able to see it all very clearly.
It is SOOOOOO very easy to take the assets and income of folks and give them to some body else.
6,000 plus years of statism — by minority rule oligarchs (often having monarch figureheads) versus democratic (small d) majorities.
However see the total bankruptcy in the CA regime due to various brainwashing efforts regarding added CA regime debts for various bond schemes in the CA constitution and laws.
Guv. S. is getting out — see incoming Guv. B in CA — very good luck to him in having an economic collapse in CA — likely to have MAJOR efforts by rightwing inland counties to secede from the leftwing coast counties.
Quite possible on a larger scale by groups of States – N, S, E and W.
#24: I can see how a good commie like you would consider Obama to be a “centrist Democrat.” Are Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, and Al Sharpton also “centrists”? I suppose Bill Clinton, Algore, and John Kerry are reactionaries?
Obama is, in my view, definitely a socialist. The only question is whether he’s a communist (as Alan Keyes says he is). One of his mentors was Frank Marshall Davis, an admitted communist. Another was Saul Alinsky, who was definitely a socialist and likely a communist (author of ‘Rules for Radicals’).
What would you do to preserve social security, Phil? With the oldest baby boomers turning 65 next month, something will need to be done. I suggest that you google “social security, Galveston County, Texas” to see how a retirement plan works that invests in private instruments. Galveston County and two other south Texas counties took advantage of a window of opportunity to opt out of the Social Security program in the early ’80s.
Which party are you predicting will replace the Republicans as the second major party?