Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

most bernie voters went for hillary in the general and nobody thinks that bernie is the arbiter of american progressivism except a few loons on reddit

the people who constantly bitch about purity tests are the ones who want to crucify bernie over a single issue supported by someone he (and the rest of the party) endorsed

Like I said, I have no problem with Mello. If the story ended at "Bernie endorses pro-life Democrat" I'd be on Bernie's side.

It's when he throws a wrench into other campaigns because he doesn't view the candidate as pure enough that bothers me. If it costs us even one vote that's a problem.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

You know what, I don't give a crap that Heath Mello doesn't support abortion rights. He's not on a policy level to impact that.

What I do care about is getting Jean Stothert out of the mayorship in my hometown. She's done literally nothing.

Uh, he absolutely is on a level where he can impact policy! A lot of abortion policy is local.

 

[legacyzero]

He seems to be great on economic issues, I'd have no problem voting for him if I lived in Omaha.

I just don't like the idea of purity tests and that only Bernie gets to pick who's a real progressive and who's not.

Were bashing Purity tests.... in a thread about Purity tests.

Hypocrisy

 

[aeolist]

I see the point you are making, but why step in and comment at all? How is this mayoral election comparable to a presidential election, in importance, such as to justify the compromise? Maybe I'm missing something. I do generally understand pragmatism, but it seems like tossing women's rights aside, for the smallest possible reason.

democrats have gotten completely trounced in local and state elections over the last decade, and actually supporting candidates nation-wide is important to rebuild. also the republican candidate is worse on this issue and every other issue besides.

again, i don't like any level of anti-abortion rhetoric or action, but i would vote for this guy just like i voted for clinton/kaine last year because we have a shit electoral system in this country and he's the lesser of two evils.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Big tent parties and progress demand it.

Put it another way, Joe Biden isn't going to outlaw abortion even as a pro life Catholic. Mike Pence will the second he has the votes from the right.


That's your choice. Be an adult.

The issue is in the forefront because of recent drama over the Democratic National Committee last week endorsing a Democratic candidate for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska, who has a record of voting against abortion rights. Among other progressives, NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue torched the DNC for making a “politically stupid” move.

This was about a politician who voted against abortion rights. Read the OP. Be an adult.

I'm obviously not against people like Diamond Joe

 

[Aaron Strife]

Were bashing Purity tests.... in a thread about Purity tests.

Hypocrisy

Heath Mello is not my problem, politicians who selectively enforce purity tests are.

My beef with Bernie is the shitty way he treated Ossoff, his endorsement of Mello only contrasts that, how is this so hard to comprehend?

 

[SilentRacoon]

Love all the people in the thread who vehemently will be against purity tests except when the person involved is someone they hate enough.

 

[aeolist]

Like I said, I have no problem with Mello. If the story ended at "Bernie endorses pro-life Democrat" I'd be on Bernie's side.

It's when he throws a wrench into other campaigns because he doesn't view the candidate as pure enough that bothers me. If it costs us even one vote that's a problem.

when did sanders do this? i honestly don't know what you're talking about.

if it's about ossoff, he simply declined to label the guy in exactly the same way that ossoff himself did. i don't think he's out to sabotage anyone.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I recall many of the posters in this thread who are upset at this, accused Bernie for being "purity test" based. Many of you have defended Hillary for her shitty pragmatic positions because, as you said, you need pragmatism to win. If anything is hypocritical in this thread, it is you, for doing a 180, when it is Bernie who is reaching out with pragmatism and wants to make a coalition to win.
This is not about abortion- This is, continually, the same posters stinking up the Bernie threads with same lies, slander and disingenuous twofaced crap. Almost all of this purity rhetoric is the exact shit you complained against for upwards a year during the election.

Gets you nowhere to head stomp everyone who doesn't check all the boxes. I'd rather see politicians who have a personal objection to something, but who votes for individual rights, than I'd burn everyone who doesn't share my ideology to a T.

You are totally allowed to be a single issue voter. Or a purity based voters. I don't look down on that or see it as an insult, even if I think that political state of mind makes it very difficult to achieve power. My only issue here is that a significant amount of the regular posters who are on their heads about this, are the same ones who was the complete opposite when Hillary took immoral positions.

Besides that, if abortion is the sword that matters over anything else- and If you're willing to pour gasoline on yourself and on everyone else over anyone deviating from your favorite causes, then all power to you. Don't compromise your values if this is what you honestly believe, but you don't get to have this flipflop position if you've been shouting and punching people with purity test accusations yourself.

 

[jtb]

abortion is an economic issue. bernie is hardly the first male politician or journalist to box it in as a "social issue", but at that point, you've already let the republicans win because you're debating the issue on their terms.

bernie can, and should, do better.

I recall many of the posters in this thread who are upset at this, accused Bernie for being "purity test" based. Many of you have defended Hillary for her shitty pragmatic positions because, as you said, you need pragmatism to win. If anything is hypocritical in this thread, it is you, for doing a 180, when it is Bernie who is reaching out with pragmatism and wants to make a coalition to win.
This is not about abortion- This is, continually, the same posters stinking up the Bernie threads with same lies, slander and disingenuous twofaced crap. Almost all of this purity rhetoric is the exact shit you complained against for upwards a year during the election.

Gets you nowhere to head stomp everyone who doesn't check all the boxes. I'd rather see politicians who have a personal objection to something, but who votes for individual rights, than I'd burn everyone who doesn't share my ideology to a T.

You are totally allowed to be a single issue voter. Or a purity based voters. I don't look down on that or see it as an insult, even if I think that political state of mind makes it very difficult to achieve power. My only issue here is that a significant amount of the regular posters who are on their heads about this, are the same ones who was the complete opposite when Hillary took immoral positions.

Besides that, if abortion is the sword that matters over anything else- and If you're willing to pour gasoline on yourself and on everyone else over anyone deviating from your favorite causes, then all power to you. Don't compromise your values if this is what you honestly believe, but you don't get to have this flipflop position if you've been shouting and punching people with purity test accusations yourself.

counterpoint: bernie doesn't get to claim to be an economic progressive while ignoring policies that DIRECTLY economically affect literally half of this country's population every. single. day.

 

[YaBish]

Uh, he absolutely is on a level where he can impact policy! A lot of abortion policy is local.

My bad, meant to put state level, but didn't think through before posting.

Even so, I'll still be voting for Mello in a few weeks, even with my reservations on his position.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

when did sanders do this? i honestly don't know what you're talking about.

if it's about ossoff, he simply declined to label the guy in exactly the same way that ossoff himself did. i don't think he's out to sabotage anyone.

Sanders was less interested in the Ossoff race. ”He's not a progressive," he said. He was endorsing Democrats based on their economic populism; they could differ from progressives on social issues but not on the threat of the mega-rich to American politics.

He had no interest in Ossoff, only changing his tune after he got shit for it. He's had no such reservations about Mello.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

My bad, meant to put state level, but didn't think through before posting.

Even so, I'll still be voting for Mello in a few weeks, even with my reservations on his position.

And that's fine. He's easily better than the alternative. We just don't need to call him a "true progressive," just like we never called Ben Nelson or Bob Kerrey true progressives. Or Joe Manchin, if we're talking about conservative anti-choice Democrats still in office.

 

[boiled goose]

This is such strange framing. Are these candidates pro life personally or anti choice?

Biden and Kerry are pro life but also pro choice.

Pro choice is what matters. Personal views that don't affect how you vote are not that relevant.

 

[soul creator]

For anyone interested in the larger discussion of "abortion rights and viewpoints of influential Democratic politicians" (as opposed to just the "Sanders is being a bit hypocritical here" angle), then this is a good article on how even seemingly "pro-choice" people can often fail those who need access to abortion (it talks about other feminist issues, but abortion rights are a big part of the article as well in the "Gloomy Expectancies" section)

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

I find nothing wrong with what he said. "You can be morally opposed to abortion, but to be a member of the party you have to support a woman's right to choose."

Y'all don't really believe that everyone in the Democratic party has religious beliefs that line up with abortion and gay marriage, do you? Being able to set those beliefs aside for fair policy is what the party is trying to promote.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

counterpoint: bernie doesn't get to claim to be an economic progressive while ignoring policies that DIRECTLY economically affect literally half of this country's population every. single. day.

Please elaborate. In the context of social democratic economic reform, explain to me what he is ignoring? This is neither his personal view, or his desire. He is simply using these people as a tool to achieve more power for the democrats, which is what politics is all about.

This is not Bernie changing his policies. This is about allowing one person into the fold who has something he (and the party wants).

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

This is such strange framing. Are these candidates pro life personally or anti choice?

Biden and Kerry are pro life but also pro choice.

Pro choice is what matters. Personal views that don't affect how you vote are not that relevant.

Mello has voted for anti choice legislation in the past, he's definitely shit.

He claims to now have the normal Catholic liberal stance on the issue but how serious that claim is has yet to be seen.

 

[kirblar]

I find nothing wrong with what he said. "You can be morally opposed to abortion, but to be a member of the party you have to support a woman's right to choose."

Y'all don't really believe that everyone in the Democratic party has religious beliefs that line up with abortion and gay marriage, do you? Being able to set those beliefs aside for fair policy is what the party is trying to promote.

It's the context with him talking shit on Ossoff at the same time.

 

[jtb]

Please elaborate. In the context of social democratic economic reform, explain to me what he is ignoring? This is neither his personal view, or his desire. He is simply using these people as a tool to achieve more power for the democrats, which is what politics is all about.

This is not Bernie changing his policies. This is about allowing one person into the fold who has something he (and the party wants).

Exactly. And something he clearly doesn't value (at least within his brand of progressivism) is reproductive rights. Remember when he threw Planned Parenthood under the bus?

Look, I don't really even blame Bernie, because framing abortion and reproductive rights as an economic issue is something politicians and journalists have been loath to do. But it's just a fact: access to abortion is, without question, one of the biggest systemic economic hurdles facing women in America. like, this should be Bernie's fucking bread and butter! if Bernie's serious about economic progressivism by pushing the party leftward through litmus tests, how is this not one of his primary litmus tests?

He can do better. As Rebecca Traister points out, he has a great record on reproductive rights (and he quickly bowed to party pressure on the Ossoff stuff). So I think he will do better.

 

[Father_Brain]

He had no interest in Ossoff, only changing his tune after he got shit for it. He's had no such reservations about Mello.

what part of "Ossoff doesn't want to be labeled a progressive and there's no indication he ever sought Bernie's endorsement" do you not grasp

 

[Steel]

Eh. Fine with them personally being anti-abortion so long as they don't take steps to take away choice.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I find nothing wrong with what he said. "You can be morally opposed to abortion, but to be a member of the party you have to support a woman's right to choose."

Y'all don't really believe that everyone in the Democratic party has religious beliefs that line up with abortion and gay marriage, do you? Being able to set those beliefs aside for fair policy is what the party is trying to promote.

Did you notice the paragraph in question where they said that not only was the person they supported personally against abortion (which is fine) but he had also voted against abortion rights in the past. That is the problem.

 

[jtb]

what part of "Ossoff doesn't want to be labeled a progressive and there's no indication he ever sought Bernie's endorsement" do you not grasp

I agree with your conclusion (Bernie's non-endorsement is not going to hurt in a suburban white district), but I don't know that there's any evidence to suggest that was the motivation behind his tepid support. Seems pretty straightforward: he just doesn't like "moderates".

 

[Xe4]

I never said don't back him, or that we shouldn't implement the 50-state strategy, but I don't have to love the guy, nor do I have to sit back and question why people (especially women) take offense.

That's fine. People have opinions and I'm cool with that. I was specifically talking about the DNC supporting this candidate, which I can't see as a problem.

This isn't the kind of issue people should compromise on. This is about basic human rights. Would people be happy about Democrats compromising on other aspects of human rights, or is this one okay because it affects women exclusively?

There is no issue that can be compromised on, according to at least someone.

If you compromise on abortion, you are hurting women's choice to reproductive freedom, a human right.

If you compromise on immigration, you are destroying millions of immigrants and their families lives, particularly children who are especially vulnerable.

If you compromise on minority rights, you are hurting minority populations all over the country and leading to more civil unrest.

If you compromise on guns, your actions will undoubtedly lead to more shootings, suicides, and assaults than would otherwise happen.

If you compromise on science or the environment, you are ok with the extinction of hundreds of thousands of species, and condemning many people in developing countries to a much shittier life.

If you compromise on economic issues, you are supporting the destruction of the middle class and workers rights, leading to many people suffering, possibly being unable to feed their families.

None of these things are great, but you'll be hard pressed to find a democrat outside of an uber liberal area that won't have to pick and choose based on what their constituents want and where their personal views align. If you personally are not ok with supporting a candidate that doesn't share your views on an issue, that's fine.

But abortion is not some holy grail of an issue that can't be compromised on just like any other. Particularly if it's a democrat in a red state running against a conservative who will be far worse on abortion rights.

 

[kirblar]

when did sanders do this? i honestly don't know what you're talking about.

if it's about ossoff, he simply declined to label the guy in exactly the same way that ossoff himself did. i don't think he's out to sabotage anyone.

He's not out to sabotage anyone, yet he repeatedly keeps doing it. (Ossoff now, not backing off after he was mathematically eliminated from the primaries, etc.)

This is why it's good that he's getting heat for this stuff now, because when there's actual negative feedback/consequences for acting like an ass, he might actually stop doing and saying these things that cause such problems for other people in the party!

These are things that people in the party instinctively understand, because the diplomacy required is a massive part of coalition building. Bernie's never had to do that in his life.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Democratic party has to be pragmatic. Bernie is doing the right thing.

The party position on abortion should be unchallenged, though.

 

[excelsiorlef]

And for the record Sanders didn't need to call Ossoff a progressive either (and probably shouldn't have given Ossoff doesn't want that label... though I'd call him on based on his social views mostly) but it was telling that at the beginning the only thing he did was was say I'm not sure he's progressive and then He's no progressive. That's all he said at first. It was 100% dismissive of Ossoff... It's clear he really didn't care much about that race like at all.


His eventual statement in support of Ossoff should have been the first and only thing out his mouth and it sure as fuck shouldn't have had to come from public pressure from Democrats.

He had zero reservations immediately embracing Mello, touting him as progressive, and crucial to support, etc... but couldn't even muster a he's better than a republican in regards to Ossoff without having to be dragged to it by pressure.


All while talking about compromise and the party needing to have candidates with different opinions and what not

And also understand that Sanders wants to be, and his supporters want him to be, a big face (if not the face) of the party. Well that comes with increased scrutiny and responsibility. Especially if he wants to be a King Maker, which frankly he clearly does.

 

[old manatee]

O I didn't know this thread was actually about Ossoff. My bad.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Didn't think it would start this soon or with reproductive rights

Damn

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

what part of "Ossoff doesn't want to be labeled a progressive and there's no indication he ever sought Bernie's endorsement" do you not grasp

You realize that's irrelevant, right, and the point is that Bernie calls for a 50 state strategy, 100% about getting Democrats elected, and yet gave zero fucks about Ossoff's race because "he's not a progressive" that aligns 1:1 about the things he cares the most about? His arm had to be twisted to get something of an endorsement that is consistent with the strategy Dems are trying to pull off.

You're able to grasp that, correct? You see how his initial reaction is problematic, no?

 

[jtb]

Democratic party has to be pragmatic. Bernie is doing the right thing.

The party position on abortion should be unchallenged, though.

Oh, so this is the issue Bernie's going to be pragmatic? Not "socialized medicine" or "free college." What's so different about this issue?

 

[excelsiorlef]

O I didn't know this thread was actually about Ossoff. My bad.

I mean it's all tied together.... there is context to what's caused these reactions.

 

[Oemenia]

See guys, Shillary was good for us after all, we would've got two Trumps if it weren't for MAAAAAH QUEEEEN!

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

See guys, Shillary was good for us after all, we would've got two Trumps if it weren't for MAAAAAH QUEEEEN!

Did you think this post was clever or something

Im not even sure what it has to do at all with the topic anyway

 

[Abelard]

Oh, so this is the issue Bernie's going to be pragmatic? Not "socialized medicine" or "free college." What's so different about this issue?

Seeing as he supported Clinton and Obama, I'd say he is being pragmatic about all of that stuff too.

 

[Omadahl]

Yeah, sorry America. Mello is the only viable candidate against our shitty mayor who just had Scott Walker endorse her today. To me, that's a bigger deal.

 

[SilentRacoon]

See guys, Shillary was good for us after all, we would've got two Trumps if it weren't for MAAAAAH QUEEEEN!

What are you trying to say.???

 

[jtb]

Seeing as he supported Clinton and Obama, I'd say he is being pragmatic about all of that stuff too.

Well, he did call (gently) to primary Obama.

My point is basically: Bernie can't have it both ways. He can't claim to represent progressive ideals and demand that the party should move left and then, you know, not actually follow through with that. On all fronts.

Now, if he wants to be the white-working-class whisperer, that's fine. But you can't have it both ways and claim that everyone who isn't as "progressive" as you is a corporate puppet for disagreeing with you.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Oh, so this is the issue Bernie's going to be pragmatic? Not "socialized medicine" or "free college." What's so different about this demagoguery?

These are issues that go back to a candidates general philosophy.
Sanders is a social democrat. His vision of the US is comparable to the northern European social systems.
This and limiting the influence of money in politics are his main goals and it would be stupid for him to compromise on that message.

Abortion is an issues thats decided by peoples religious believes. It doesn't make sense to debate that.

 

[ginger ninja]

God forbid someone tries to accommodate more then one point of view or bridge the divide in our country.

 

[jtb]

These are issues that go back to a candidates general philosophy.
Sanders is a social democrat. His vision of the US is comparable to the northern European social systems.
This and limiting the influence of money in politics are his main goals and it would be stupid for him to compromise on that message.

Abortion is an issues thats decided by peoples religious believes. It doesn't make sense to debate that.

Abortion and reproductive rights (birth control) are economic issues. If anyone should be taking up this charge, it's Bernie.

Why is he shying away? Maybe because it's not an opportunity for him to demagogue for easy political points?

God forbid someone tries to accommodate more then one point of view or bridge the divide in our country.

One person's "bridging the divide" is another's "pandering to racists and misogynists and general awfulness." I don't think it's out of the question to have a conversation about what core, inalienable values our party - and our country - should have.

 

[old manatee]

God forbid someone tries to accommodate more then one point of view or bridge the divide in our country.

b-b-but Ossof!

 

[Skellig Gra]

It's a pragmatic approach. They are alienating a lot of women if they push this hardcore. Just leave it on the back burner as a requirement for a platform. True it's not a progressive move at all but you can't enact change if you never get elected.

 

[guek]

Oh, so this is the issue Bernie's going to be pragmatic? Not "socialized medicine" or "free college." What's so different about this issue?

Well for one, Bernie and the rest of the party leadership have been clear that their endorsement is under the condition that Mello tow the party line.

 

[Father_Brain]

You realize that's irrelevant, right, and the point is that Bernie calls for a 50 state strategy, 100% about getting Democrats elected, and yet gave zero fucks about Ossoff's race because "he's not a progressive" that aligns 1:1 about the things he cares the most about? His arm had to be twisted to get something of an endorsement that is consistent with the strategy Dems are trying to pull off.

You're able to grasp that, correct? You see how his initial reaction is problematic, no?

I've said multiple times in this very thread that Sanders' initial comment on Ossoff was needlessly provocative and antagonistic, and that he was right to walk it back, so yes? Doesn't mean it's not being blown out of proportion.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Exactly. And something he clearly doesn't value (at least within his brand of progressivism) is reproductive rights. Remember when he threw Planned Parenthood under the bus?

Look, I don't really even blame Bernie, because framing abortion and reproductive rights as an economic issue is something politicians and journalists have been loath to do. But it's just a fact: access to abortion is, without question, one of the biggest systemic economic hurdles facing women in America. like, this should be Bernie's fucking bread and butter! if Bernie's serious about economic progressivism by pushing the party leftward through litmus tests, how is this not one of his primary litmus tests?

He can do better. As Rebecca Traister points out, he has a great record on reproductive rights (and he quickly bowed to party pressure on the Ossoff stuff). So I think he will do better.

But he didn't throw PP under the bus- He pointed out, that the good will and emotional charge of that organization putting its hand on a candidate is making it less about policy and more about a corrupt campaign system of emotionally charging voters into voting for someone over endorsement. The campaign financing system is toxic and broken and it makes everyone all the more stupid celebrity endorsements, news aggrigates, non-profits and other organizations to try and swing an election.

I don't disagree with what you said, but everything is an economic issue, as lack of money keeps you from doing basically anything. I don't think abortion is a bigger hurdle than say maternity leave, minimum wage (for single mothers in particularly)- There are many instances and variables in this. I don't think Bernie likes to defend the opinions of people with anti-abortion positions, but I think he believes the ends justify the means. That's the eternal struggle of idealism versus pragmatism right? If he is doing this out of necessity is it then really a contrast to his beliefs?

 

[Emerson]

Abortion and reproductive rights (birth control) are economic issues. If anyone should be taking up this charge, it's Bernie.

You're free to keep saying this all day, and you will attain no greater an understanding of the mentality of the pro-life opposition. It has zero to do with economics. It's religion and morality.

Here it is, simply.

Do you believe (based on your understanding of science and/or your religious faith) a fetus to be a human life?

If yes: abortion is murder. One human's rights do not outweigh the rights of another to live, unless the mother is at risk (most believe this).
If no: abortion is anywhere between a meaningless act and a sad event but still outweighed by the rights of the parents

What people need to get through their heads is that these are both 100% rational. The only difference is what you believe the value of a fetus is. I believe a human fetus should not be afforded the rights of a human until the age of viability, so my political beliefs stem from that. Until you understand that, you're wasting your time arguing with pro-life believers.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I've said multiple times in this very thread that Sanders' initial comment on Ossoff was needlessly provocative and antagonistic, and that he was right to walk it back, so yes? Doesn't mean it's not being blown out of proportion.

I think it's a sign of where Sanders is actually coming from. But yeah, he walked it back, so great.

 

[jtb]

Well for one, Bernie and the rest of the party leadership have been clear that their endorsement is under the condition that Mello tow the party line.

Exactly. Everyone's like "oh this row illustrates everything wrong with the democrats lolz (SHILLARY EMAILZZZ)" but this actually illustrates the power and strength of the Democratic base - through grassroots activism and base energy, they're getting candidates like Mello and Perriello to tow the pro-choice policy line. I don't see how that's anything other than a good thing if you care about "electing progressives."