Bernie Sanders, back when he was making sense.
“This ugly incident confirms that the politics of division has no place in our country,” Mr. Sanders said in a statement. “Mr. Trump should take responsibility for addressing his supporters’ violent actions.”
Today, Sanders released the biggest shit statement I’ve seen from a Democrat since … Joe Lieberman? It’s been a while. And it’s an utter disgrace, utterly contradicting the very advice he gave Trump just two months ago.
Remember, the issue here is the reprehensible behavior we saw from Sanders supporters at last weekend’s Nevada State Democratic Party convention, and the reactions afterward. In short, the Sanders campaign lost the vote on caucus day, went into the convention with a plan to undemocratically overturn those results, then reacted violently when their plan failed. Meanwhile, the state Democratic Party chair has been harassed at home and at work with vile misogynistic comments like, “You fucking stupid bitch! What the hell are you doing? You’re a fucking corrupt bitch!” Then, when asked about it at a press conference today, this happened:
So after three days of pressure, and literally walking away from an NBC reporter mid-press conference when asked about it, Sanders finally issued this piece of crap response, reproduced here in its entirety but with my comments inline:
“It is imperative that the Democratic leadership, both nationally and in the states, understand that the political world is changing and that millions of Americans are outraged at establishment politics and establishment economics. The people of this country want a government which represents all of us, not just the 1 percent, super PACs and wealthy campaign contributors.
Your supporters are calling a top Democrat “you fucking stupid bitch”, and you open with your stump speech? The fuck? And before someone says, “How do we know this wasn’t an agent provocateur or David Brock?” fact is, if it was, it’d be easy for Sanders to condemn that, right? The issue here aren’t the assholes making those calls, it’s that Sanders refuses to condemn that behavior.
“The Democratic Party has a choice. It can open its doors and welcome into the party people who are prepared to fight for real economic and social change – people who are willing to take on Wall Street, corporate greed and a fossil fuel industry which is destroying this planet. Or the party can choose to maintain its status quo structure, remain dependent on big-money campaign contributions and be a party with limited participation and limited energy
More stump speech, because that’s what’s important when responding to your own supporters’ violence…
“Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a ‘penchant for violence.’ That is nonsense. Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence.
“Penchant for violence”? Yeah that was overwrought, but his supporters did little to dispel that notion at the convention, and you have a party chair reeling from relentless hateful attacks at home and at work. And what’s with the reference to “high-crime areas”? What does that have to do with whether his supporters are violent or not? Is it notable that they were able to refrain from unlawful behavior even in places were crime is prevalent? Congrats to them, I guess. In any case, I don’t think it’s true that the campaign is particularly prone to violence, nor the vast majority of his supporters, but we also saw this weekend that there are individuals who are, and we see a campaign unwilling to unequivocally condemn them. (p.s. This kind of shit is also unhelpful.)
Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But,
This sentence would’ve been great if the statement had led with this and ended with it. There is no “but”, because that “but” negates everything. It excuses it, gives it unwarranted rationale. And of course, that’s what happens here:
But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
Is this an accusation that Hillary or her campaign or her supporters fired shots into his campaign office and ransacked the home of his staffers? If true, then yes, that is deplorable, and would be fucking horrible. BUT IT’S NOT FUCKING TRUE! This is a non-sequitor, conflating randomized violence that could’ve been political, could’ve been random, and using that is justification for what transpired in Nevada this past weekend. That is beyond offensive, beyond rational, beyond belief! I utterly cannot believe this statement has Sanders’ name on it.
Whether shots were fired at his campaign office or not, what happened this weekend was horrible. If what happened this weekend not happened, someone firing shots at his campaign office is horrible. They are both horrible, and neither is justification for the other. As events, they stand alone. So trying to use one to excuse the other is just wrong. Painfully wrong. Like, “I’m feeling the respect I had for Sanders ebb out of me” wrong. To see a grown man resort to “she started it first” is ridiculous, even setting aside the fact that there is no evidence (nor even a suggestion!) that it was Clinton’s people who performed those earlier acts of violence.
“If the Democratic Party is to be successful in November, it is imperative that all state parties treat our campaign supporters with fairness and the respect that they have earned. I am happy to say that has been the case at state conventions in Maine, Alaska, Colorado and Hawaii where good discussions were held and democratic decisions were reached. Unfortunately, that was not the case at the Nevada convention. At that convention the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place. Among other things:
Maine, Alaska, Colorado, and Hawaii. Hmm, I wonder what those caucus states have in common … could it be that … BERNIE WON THEM? So the states in which he wins, great! I mean, it’s not as if the Clinton campaign organized to overturn election-night results. So yes, of course those would be run smoothly. Both campaigns respected the will of the voters. What was the case in Nevada is that Sanders supporters had a plan to overturn the will of the voters and failed. As the preeminent (non-partisan) political writer in all of Nevada noted:
THAT is the root of this entire mess. Everything else, including the claims Sanders himself makes here are bunk:
-
- The chair of the convention announced that the convention rules passed on voice vote, when the vote was a clear no-vote. At the very least, the Chair should have allowed for a headcount.
- The chair allowed its Credentials Committee to en mass rule that 64 delegates were ineligible without offering an opportunity for 58 of them to be heard. That decision enabled the Clinton campaign to end up with a 30-vote majority.
- The chair refused to acknowledge any motions made from the floor or allow votes on them.
The chair refused to accept any petitions for amendments to the rules that were properly submitted.
“These are on top of failures at the precinct and county conventions including trying to depose and then threaten with arrest the Clark County convention credentials chair because she was operating too fairly.”
That’s the end of the statement, no underscoring of the problems of violence, just excuse after excuse after excuse, even though every one of those bullet points has been debunked. That is, you have a major presidential candidate trafficking in conspiracy theory.
So to recap, your supporters create so much havoc at the state party convention that convention hall officials shut down the event out of security concerns. Sanders responds with 1) stump speech and then more stump speech, 2) arguably valid point about painting too broad a brush about his campaign, 3) condemnation of poor behavior!, but 4) unfounded insinuation that other side started it with acts of violence against his campaign, 5) a litany of debunked claims about what transpired at the convention, and 6) the end. It’s everyone else’s fault, so while such violence is wrong, well, who could blame them?
I do find it funny that Sanders supporters decry the unfairness of this caucus system when the bulk of Sanders’ delegates comes from unfair caucuses. These things are pieces of shit, no doubt. All of them! The ones Clinton won and the ones Sanders won. They need to end or be reformed. Honestly, all this confusion and even attempts at mischief-making could be avoided with a saner system. BUT, that’s all a separate argument, apparently for a different time. Because right now, we can’t even get a clean, unmitigated condemnation of violent rhetoric, actions, and harassment from Bernie Sanders!
And I still can’t fucking believe it.
Update: Great report from MamaJeanB, who was a delegate at the Nevada convetion.
