Tagged: Bernie Sanders Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • feedwordpress 12:27:25 on 2016/03/10 Permalink
    Tags: Bernie Sanders, , , , , , , , ,   

    Humbly, I Ask You to Support Ted Cruz to Slay the Three-Headed Liberal Monster 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    The race for the White House is down to three liberals and a conservative. Some would say that Bernie Sanders doesn’t have a chance, but don’t underestimate the ability of Hillary Clinton to blow it or for one of her scandals or criminal investigations to blow it for her. As far as the GOP, the infiltration of Donald Trump into the Republican nomination picture means that Ted Cruz is the lone conservative who has a chance of winning the general election.

    Some will immediately balk and say, “Trump’s not a liberal!” It has been well documented that Trump is not a conservative and even those who cling to the idea that he’s a moderate Republican haven’t examined his policy proposals closely enough. From his health care plans to his love affair with Planned Parenthood to far-left tariff proposals to… look, either you’ve been paying attention or you haven’t. Trump isn’t as liberal as Sanders, but he’s barely to the right of Clinton on many issues and pushes left of her on trade and portions of his tax plan. His immigration policy is conservative. He has allegedly evolved on guns and abortion. Otherwise, he memorized some Republican talking points but has never and will never take the most important stand on the conservative platform to reduce the size of government and empower Americans. He’s all about big government and he believes that he can make America great, not the people. He’s a liberal through and through.

    Most conservatives have coalesced around Ted Cruz as not only the candidate that can beat the three liberals but also as the best person to bring back the Reaganesque and Coolidgesque ideologies that propelled the country to prosperity and incredible positions of world leadership. There are those, particularly more pragmatic Republicans, who are still concerned about Cruz’s ideologies and the consistent principled conservatism he’s practiced throughout his career. Those who have supported candidates other than Cruz and Trump might feel like Cruz is too conservative, too divisive, or that he has too many enemies in Washington DC to make things happen.

    This is where an understanding of the Executive branch versus the Legislative branch is necessary. As a Senator, Cruz has been a challenge for the GOP. His anti-Establishment style is righteous but divisive. He’s made many enemies and few friends. He’s broken from the norm and challenged the Establishment to do the right thing or expose their underlying treacheries. The last major candidate to be as conservative, principled, divisive, and universally hated by the Establishment was Ronald Reagan. Those of us who are old enough to remember can attest that whatever hatred you think the Establishment feels towards Cruz, it was double against Reagan after he dared to contest the 1976 Republican convention against an incumbent, Gerald Ford. The sames things being said about Cruz were said about Reagan in 1980.

    What Reagan proved and what Cruz will prove as President is that the qualities that made everyone hate him are the same qualities that can unify the party from the Executive branch. He doesn’t need to get along with anyone. Congress is beholden to him, not the other way around. That’s not to say that Congress will give him whatever he wants, but they will put bills on his desk that align with the conservative principles that this country needs or he won’t sign them. As one of 100 Senators, he held 1% of the power of one wing of the Legislative branch. As President, he holds 100% of the power of the Executive branch. Our form of government is elegantly designed to allow ideologues like Cruz and Reagan to flex their conservative muscles and act as the conscience against a Legislative branch that, by its very nature, is made up of deal-makers. The irony is that Trump would have likely made an excellent Senator but would be a terrible President specifically because of his penchant for cutting backroom deals.

    If Trump is allowed to get the nomination, everything points to a Democratic victory in November. Polls, favorability ratings, scandals, and common sense say that Trump cannot win. Even if he’s able to defy the odds, it still means that a liberal will be in the White House doing damage to our nation

    John Kasich and Marco Rubio have both run honorable and effective campaigns. That’s why they’ve made it this far against more powerful candidates like Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, and Chris Christie. However, their time is up and they do not have a path to the nomination, not even through a brokered or contested convention. A vote for either of them is a vote for Trump and therefore a vote for one of the three liberals to win the White House.

    After a hard fight, it’s time to unify around the only man that can prevent the disastrous election of Trump, Clinton, or Sanders. Make your voice heard and your vote count. Only Cruz can halt the three-headed liberal menace that aims to destroy this country.

  • feedwordpress 13:46:14 on 2016/03/02 Permalink
    Tags: Bernie Sanders, , , , , ,   

    Oklahoma is the Only State So Far to Vote Against Corruption on Both Sides 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Super Tuesday ended very close to the way most expected. Donald Trump underperformed by missing three states when he was expected by many to sweep, but he still had a good night. Hillary Clinton’s night was also dominant, but both we surprised to fail in the one state that voted against the two most corrupt candidates in the race. Oklahoma chose Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders.

    There’s really not much to the story. Oklahoma is a right-leaning state but one that has a history of fighting corrupt politicians even if they match ideologies. Democrats in the state have been very critical of President Obama which may be one of the reasons that didn’t take Clinton’s continuation plan as well as most states have. Republicans are mostly conservative with the state in the perennial top 10 furthest to the right, but they aren’t as easily fooled by the Trump sales pitch as others.

    As an Okie at heart, even 10 years since leaving there for California, I am proud that my state selected the two most principled candidates. I support Cruz and even though I think Sanders is a socialist mad man, I believe he’s a principled socialist mad man.

  • feedwordpress 06:12:48 on 2016/02/12 Permalink
    Tags: Bernie Sanders, , Erick Erickson, , , , , ,   

    Marco Rubio Is Not The Most Electable Candidate 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    I consider Erick Erickson to be one of the least appreciated conservative commentators out there. He is a smart and disciplined Christian conservative who holds the improved prosperity of Americans in the highest regard. I rarely disagree completely with him. This time, I do.

    His article, Marco Rubio As The Most Electable Candidate, makes a declaration rather than making a case. Nothing wrong with that; in-depth articles detailing evidence that supports a premise are less valid in today’s drive-by digital media consuming society. It’s better to get in, get out, and make a statement since fewer people today are willing to read long articles or watch long videos. To keep it fair, I’ll attempt to do the same thing. I could go into great detail about why I think Rubio is the third most electable rather than the most. Erickson could do the same with a long piece supporting Rubio as the most electable.

    It should be noted that I support Ted Cruz first with Rubio a distant second… but second nonetheless. Erickson, who has stated that he won’t endorse a single candidate, likes both of them. He’s friends with both of them. That gives his insight a lot more direct influence. I fear, though, that it also adds a personal haze to his discernment.

    Let’s begin.

    Rubio is Not the Most Electable This Year

    In any standard Presidential campaign cycle, Marco Rubio would clearly be the easiest choice for the Republicans looking for the most electable candidate. If he had been 44-years-old with five years in the Senate under his built in 2008, he would have been a better choice than John McCain and we probably wouldn’t be suffering through the Obama administration right now. The same can be said about 2012. In fact, if you could transpose his current self back to any of the previous five elections, he would have been the likely GOP nominee. He would have done better than Bob Dole in 1996. He would have probably defeated George W. Bush in 2000… you get the picture.

    Rubio is a great candidate. He’s the right mix of evangelical fervor, conservative values, and the occasional willingness to get his hands dirty with the Democrats a la Gang of Eight.

    Here’s the problem with 2016. He would likely beat Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, but he would have a harder time than Cruz. The reason is in the matchups themselves. He shares weaknesses with the Democrats that Cruz does not share. He still has contrasts, but not nearly as many. For example, one of the digs against Clinton is that she hasn’t been able to accomplish much as a politician. Every Republican candidate has more accomplishments in their lives than Hillary Clinton except for Rubio. Chris Christie pointed this out in the last debate, but it was obviously overshadowed by the RoboRubio exchange. In the general election against Hillary Clinton, she’ll be able to point to more accomplishments in her time in the Senate than Rubio has had in his time. His most notable moment in the Senate was the Gang of Eight bill. When someone is running away from their landmark achievement in government, we have a problem.

    Against Sanders, Rubio matches up a little better. An argument can be made that Sanders represents an ideological extreme while Rubio plays better to the masses, but this argument fails to understand the way that Independents vote in the general election. If you were to look at the campaign platforms of every winning President since 1968, George H. W. Bush was the only one who ran on a less-extreme platform than his competitor (and one can argue that his victory was really a mandate for a third Reagan term). Every winning Democrat has run on a platform that was more liberal than his competitor’s platform was conservative. Every Republican winner other than GHWB has run on a more conservative platform. Independents are not necessarily moderates. Many (most?) are simply wanting to be inspired to follow one direction or the other in any given year. Polarizing platforms win general elections.

    Perhaps most damaging for Rubio against Sanders is that one of Rubio’s strengths – his appeal to young voters – is all but negated going head-to-head with Sanders.

    There’s another ding against Rubio that plays against him matching up against either Democrat. His history of personal finance irresponsibility will be put on wide display in a general election matchup. Sanders is offering free school and will say that, “Not every student will get a book advance of $800,000 to pay off student debts and buy a 24-foot speedboat.” Clinton will be able to wash away her own scandals by pointing out that “Rubio used government credit cards to pave his driveway and go to a family reunion.”

    In a sound bite society, their talking points will play well with the electorate. Cruz, on the other hand, will have an unwavering history of conservatism to counteract Sanders’ socialism and a proven record of incorruptability to match up against Clinton’s lifetime of scandal and deceit.

    Rubio would have been better than Cruz against Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, or Bill Clinton. Against either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, Cruz is better suited to take them on because he matches up in ways that Rubio simply doesn’t.

  • feedwordpress 01:49:40 on 2016/02/11 Permalink
    Tags: Bernie Sanders, , , , , ,   

    Of All the Years for Trump to Run, Why Do it When the Democrats are So Weak? 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Since 1996, every Republican nominee for President (yes, even George W. Bush) has been weak. Any of those years, we could have used Donald Trump. He’s the wildcard who could have had a chance against (misleadingly) strong Democratic nominees like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. I would have supported him. This year, we have the strongest group of Republican candidates, any of whom (yes, even Jeb Bush) would have been better than Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole.

    On the other side of the fence, we have the weakest Democrats running for President. Hillary Clinton has a distinct history of corruption and Bernie Sanders is a crazy socialist. A strong candidate like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or Marco Rubio would beat them easily. Even Bush or John Kasich would likely win.

    Why are so many Republicans going for the wildcard in the one election where we don’t have to take our chances? I get it. Donald Trump has a great sales pitch and he’s extremely likable with his sound bites. However, he also represents the best chance the Democrats have of pulling off the miracle they need in order to put another Democrat in the White House for four more years.

    This image tells of my frustration with the Republican party. We are finally given the opportunity to nominate a real Reagan-conservative and we’re going to counter one of two weak Democrats with the wildcard Republican/Democrat/Businessman/Entertainer hybrid. Makes no sense at all.

    The visual nature of social media means that from time to time we will be sharing messages that should resonate for our audience. To see more of them, which are great for sharing on social media, simply click on the Messages category.

  • feedwordpress 16:54:52 on 2016/01/24 Permalink
    Tags: Bernie Sanders, , , , , , , , ,   

    Faith Will Help the Right Candidate Emerge as the Nominee and President 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    There’s only one reason that I don’t really worry more about Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders. As much as I would dislike any of them becoming the leader of the country, I have faith in God’s Will. As Christian conservatives, we are charged to pray daily for our Father’s Will to be done and we have to know in our hearts that whatever happens, it was meant to be.

    That absolutely, positively does not give us license to not get involved. It’s not for us to know our place in this world or how our participation (or choice not to participate) will affect the outcome. We will fight tooth and nail both in the world, online, and in our prayers to see Ted Cruz as the nominee because we feel that he’s the right man for the job. If he isn’t nominated, we will determine how to move forward based upon the circumstances.

    As hard as it is to believe for some Christians based upon what we’ve seen in this country for decades and in particular over the last seven years, there’s a plan in place for all of these things. It’s not a stretch to find the silver lining that President Obama, as poorly as we perceive him, may have been ideal for the last few years. Personally, his Presidency has acted as a wake up call to stand strong in my faith and political beliefs rather than being as passive as I had been for years prior. Had John McCain or Mitt Romney defeated him, things may be different. It could also be said that both Romney’s and McCain’s losses have contributed to the opportunity we now have in this country to elect a true conservative and unabashed Christian into the Presidency.

    Again, it’s above our pay grade to know why things that seem bad happen at any given moment. It’s our belief that this moment was made for Ted Cruz, but we’re not going get down for long if he isn’t chosen. Doing so would be to lose faith that our Father has a plan that goes well beyond our understanding.

    Pray and act. These are the things that give Christian conservatives the best chance to help this country correct its path. The prayer part is easy – the Lord’s Prayer will do. As for action: keep fighting for the first principled conservative since Ronald Reagan to sit in the Oval Office.

    To that end, here’s a little video we compiled.

    Trump vs Cruz in 8 Minutes

    As #Iowans prepare for caucus, the two top choices for Republicans are Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. This year, the Iowa vote is more important than it's been in a long time, perhaps ever. Which candidate should earn your support?

    Posted by Social News Watch on Sunday, January 24, 2016

  • feedwordpress 21:13:54 on 2016/01/18 Permalink
    Tags: Bernie Sanders, , , , , , , ,   

    Hillary Clinton’s Play for President Obama’s Approval Has Republicans Foaming at the Mouth 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Let’s be crystal clear. Hillary Clinton’s primary goal in speaking to millions of people during last weekend’s Democratic Debate was to address a single person: President Obama. She had been advised that if the President, Vice President Joe Biden, and other past and current members of the Administration didn’t support her, that she could lose. To win their support, she had to come out by promising to honor their work and keep it in play. She had to come out in defense of his legacy in order to get them on board with her campaign.

    Don’t expect the President to come out publicly. Definitely expect members of his staff to hit the phones and let their allies know who should be getting endorsements and donations. This was smart politics for Clinton. It’s also exactly what the Republicans wanted to happen.

    “We have the Affordable Care Act. That is one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama, of the Democratic Party, and of our country,” she said.

    You don’t have to memorize that line. It’s going to be hammered into our conscience almost as hard as her husband played on the phrase, “Read my lips. No new taxes.”

    It is extremely difficult for a party in the modern era to maintain control of the White House following a two-term President. Al Gore was extremely popular following Bill Clinton, but he was outmaneuvered in the end. This is part of the ebb and flow of American politics to rotate both the executive and legislative branches to maintain a balance. It’s not coordinated necessarily, but dissent is easier to muster than support in a world where things are going wrong every day.

    Hillary Clinton is hoping for a George H. W. Bush moment. While she would love to win the nomination and the Presidency based solely on her merits and policy proposals, she has decided to cave to the third-term effect. She’s hoping that President Obama’s popularity will carry over to her. She reluctantly hopes to win by being the only candidate who will defend President Obama’s actions and legacy and she has a plan to present the Republicans (and Bernie Sanders) as the people who will try to dismantle the “great things” that President Obama has done.

    For Republicans, this simply adds to a growing list of attack points. They already have Benghazi, though it’s unclear whether or not that will be able to play well in the general election. They have the email controversy which will likely continue on until November. They have her complicity in Bill Clinton’s war on women which will definitely continue throughout whether it’s helpful or not. Now, we have her defending things that are clearly broken. It’s not exactly a coup for the Republicans, but it’s great fodder for the campaign strategists to consume.

    It pains Clinton to have to resort to playing the “Obama Third Term” card. She really doesn’t like the guy and doesn’t want to ride his coattails, but it may be required for her to get the nomination quickly. That’s just fine with us. The more she attaches to Obama, the easier it will be for Republicans to take her down in November.

  • feedwordpress 07:00:30 on 2016/01/18 Permalink
    Tags: Bernie Sanders, , , , , ,   

    Can Bernie Sanders Win the Nomination? 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    The 2016 Presidential election may end up being a snore fest depending on the nominees, but the months prior to the nominations being solidified seemed destined to be unique. Then again, they may also seem to be eerily familiar to Hillary Clinton who is watching a once-dominant lead whither away like it did in 2008.

    While similar, it’s definitely not the same. This is a different Hillary Clinton, a better one though one that is loaded with more personal challenges to her credibility. More importantly, Bernie Sanders is not Barack Obama. He is stronger than Obama in some ways, but he doesn’t have the cross-generational charisma that helped Obama rise meteorically. Instead, Sanders, appeals less the younger generation that believes in his socialist principles and the older generation that simply doesn’t like Clinton. In the middle, the pragmatic thirty- and forty-somethings form her formidable base.

    Where Barack Obama represented hope, Bernie Sanders represents angst. Where Barack Obama represented fresh concepts and a statement of progress by being the first black President, Bernie Sanders represents a return to the norm of old white men running the country. Both of these concepts favor Obama’s victory over Clinton while damaging Sanders’ chances, but there’s one more component that must be considered.

    While Obama tried desperately to avoid the idea of having a socialist economic plan, preferring to focus on social liberalism instead, Sanders is the complete picture. Whether it’s the military, taxes, minority rights, gay rights, women’s rights, or income equality, Sanders is unabashedly left and a declared socialist. While it’s hard to imagine as conservatives an America that is willing to bow down to a socialist ideology, we must understand that there are many people who can be easily manipulated to believe that socialism can work… for them in particular.

    This is a powerful force. Sanders will appeal to the selfishness of the individual while giving them the righteous rallying call of income equality. This will work on those who feel entitled and unfortunately there are a lot of them. Then, there are the “euro-snobs,” the American thinking elite that believe that we have it all wrong in America and if we were as progressive as Europe we would be a better fit for the 21st century.

    There’s one other notion that should worry those who want Clinton to be the nominee. She’s taking on the role of picking up the Obama mantle and carrying it on as his “third term.” It might work, considering that he’s still a popular President. Then again, it could backfire greatly, particularly if the economy, the Middle East, or terrorism in America take turns for the worse during the primary season.

    Whether we like it or not, there’s a path for Sanders to emerge with the nomination. The real question that conservatives should be asking is whether or not we want that to happen.

    In Short, No

    Hillary Clinton is a weak politician and a weak candidate. She is corrupt; even her supporters don’t completely believe her. She is someone that Ted Cruz could easily defeat with his principled style of governance and most of the other candidates would have a good chance against her.

    With Sanders, it’s hard to tell whether or not he could win the general election. Common sense tells us that a socialist could never win the White House, but if we’ve learned anything this election cycle it’s that common sense has no place in the 2016 political scope. He’s a wildcard while Clinton is clearly a weak opponent.

    Does this mean that we need to go out bashing Sanders? No. For the Republican party to win the White House, we need the Democratic nomination process to be drawn out as long as possible. The sooner it’s certain one or the other will be the nominee, the sooner they’ll be able to focus on the general election. The Republican nominee will almost certainly go through a long fight. We need the Democrats to fight each other as long as possible.

    Whether or not Bernie Sanders can win the nomination will remain unclear until March. However, if you watch the GOP debates, one would believe that Hillary Clinton has already won. This is a mistake. Sanders must be considered.

  • feedwordpress 02:26:34 on 2015/12/19 Permalink
    Tags: Bernie Sanders, , , DNC, , , , ,   

    Why Conservatives Should Support Bernie Sanders in his Fight Against the DNC 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Hillary Clinton has a knack for getting rid of competition one way or another. In the case of Bernie Sanders versus the Democratic National Committee, she has used her pull to attempt to eliminate her only real competitor for the Democratic Presidential nomination. If you don’t realize that this is a travesty of justice directly influenced by Clinton, you haven’t been watching her or her husband closely enough over the decades.

    The DNC mandates that a candidate get 10 days written notice to fix any issue before the party can restrict access to its voter database. This rush to judgment and action had one single consequence – get Sanders in hot water before the Democratic debate. It worked. Conservatives who believe in freedom, the Constitution, and the American way should be fuming angry and actually supporting Sanders at this time. We can beat up on him all we want if he is able to get the nomination. For now, we have to be on his side for both ethical and practical reasons.

    The ethics component is easy to see. He’s being wronged by a corrupt and manipulative Democratic Establishment who has already decided they are stuck with Clinton for this election. As a result, they want her to be protected as much as possible through the nomination process and they want her to be fresh to go after whichever Republican wins that nomination.

    As far as practicality, it’s fair to say that Clinton is a weak candidate. The sooner that Sanders can be eliminated, the easier it will be for Clinton to focus on winning the general election. While I would rather go up against Clinton than Sanders, if he can stay in long enough to weaken her, it’s better for the Republican nominee.

    For now, let’s put the practical aspect aside. The battle that Sanders is now forced to fight is righteous. There’s a reason that the company hired by the DNC made it so easy to break the rules. If this doesn’t smell like a total setup, nothing does. One staffer gets access to Clinton’s data and suddenly the hammer comes down on the eve of the debate. This has Clinton’s corrupt odor all over it.

    It’s not like Sanders hired a hacker to break into the files. The defenses were intentionally left down in order to lure some idiot into the nest. This is a blatant attack against Sanders. This is a clear push for Clinton to wrap up the nomination quickly. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the entrapment and overly swift judgment being handed down as a result.

    Unfortunately, the Clinton plan will likely work. It’s a shame. If the enemy of our enemy is our friend, then Sanders needs our support.

  • feedwordpress 20:36:06 on 2015/12/17 Permalink
    Tags: Bernie Sanders, , , , ,   

    It Should Be Cruz vs Sanders for the Sake of Science 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    America is at a crossroads. The ideologies that operate in this country are polarized and yet the government itself is stuck in the “mushy middle” as we see in how legislation is handled between the Republican Congress and the Democratic President. It’s time for the ideological polls to answer the question of this generation: are we a conservative country or a liberal country?

    Ever since Ronald Reagan left office, we’ve experienced a United States government that fails to compromise time and time again despite the moderates that we elect to office to combat this trend. For real progress and the advancement of America, we need to lean in one direction or the other. The middle is not about progress. It’s about more of the same.

    Personally, I believe that the heart of the country is still conservative, profoundly influenced by the Bible and the Constitution above all else. Many would disagree, particularly mainstream media and the public education system, and could show evidence that during the Obama administration we’ve shifted as a country to the left. I’d love to see this played out in the Presidential election. I’d love to see Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders as the nominees.

    Call it a science experiment. While I do not believe that the majority of Americans have shifted to either pole, it would be very interesting to see if the middle would prefer to see the far right or far left take the country in their direction. This isn’t just a request for the sake of science, though. The reality is that the country has always operated better when one of the ideological extremes is in power.

    From a purely economic perspective, it’s in the extremes that we see progress and while I would never willingly allow a Progressive mentality to run our economy into the ground, there’s something that can be said about the left’s ebb versus the right’s flow when it comes to money. Too much of one or the other isn’t as good as the mix of the two, though that’s an artificially created instrument of fiscal irresponsibility that could be remedied by sustained fiscal conservatism over several decades, but I digress.

    Unfortunately for America, it seems like Hillary Clinton may be too entrenched in the minds of Democrats to ever give Sanders a chance. Oh well. Cruz versus Clinton might be the closest we’ll ever get to the ideological cage match I envision.

  • feedwordpress 11:19:17 on 2015/11/09 Permalink
    Tags: Bernie Sanders, , , , , ,   

    Bernie Sanders is Far Superior to Hillary Clinton as a Candidate 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    Here’s some friendly advice from a conservative to Democrats: you’re making a huge mistake by letting Hillary Clinton be your candidate instead of Bernie Sanders. It’s hard for me to say that since Sanders is the ideological opposite of conservatives, but judging by the way that Clinton is being indoctrinated as the best bet by Democrats, it’s important for me to state the truth.

    Clinton is a scoundrel. She accomplished absolutely nothing as a Senator, but that’s better than the damage she did as First Lady which is better than the greater damage she did as Secretary of State. It’s not just the conservative in me that’s saying those things, either. Keep in mind that I was even more critical of Colin Powell when he was Secretary of State under George W. Bush. Condeleeza Rice was better, but not by much.

    For whatever reason, the media and the DNC have already decided that Hillary Clinton is the Democrats’ candidate. If I were a Democrat, I would be crying foul and doing everything I could to contest this travesty.

    As a conservative who usually votes Republican, I welcome the possibility of Clinton being the candidate, and as much as I want to keep my mouth shut and let it happen, I consider the ever-so-slight possibility of her winning the general election as being too much to risk. I don’t believe in Bernie Sanders as a President because his policies are obtuse to me, but I would welcome a Sanders Presidency over Hillary Clinton. In fact, I would welcome a Sanders Presidency over Donald Trump or Jeb Bush.

    There are plenty of false claims being made about Sanders. Those false complaints include:

    • Sanders is Too Old: Yes, he’s over six years older than Clinton, but there are multiple sources that say her health is more of a concern than his.
    • Sanders it Too Liberal: First, it’s important to note the distinction between actions and labels. Sanders is labeled as a socialist and he is. President Obama and Clinton are not labeled as socialists, but they are. In the Senate, Clinton and Sanders voted alike 93% of the time. Despite Clinton’s occasional attempt to appeal to the moderates (depending on who she’s speaking to at the time) her record and her declared policies are nearly as liberal as Sanders. The second thing to note here is that being too far to the left or too far to the right has never stopped a candidate. In fact, looking back over the last few decades, the more extreme candidate won nearly every time with the exception of Michael Dukakis who probably would have won had he not been competing against Ronald Reagan’s “third term” with George H.W. Bush.
    • Sanders Can’t Debate: Based upon the single performance so far, one can easily argue that Clinton was the better debater. However, that’s within her own party with a friendly host in the form of Anderson Cooper. We can assume that the debate would be more challenging when she’s up against a GOP candidate. In that situation, I would give the advantage to the ideological Sanders.

    Those aren’t the only falsehoods being put out there, but the biggest thing going for Clinton against Sanders is that people on the moderate side of their party believe that he’s too polarizing. He’s facing the same challenge as Ted Cruz for the Republicans. In both cases, they would be far superior candidates in a general election than their moderate foes.

    Traditional logic would dictate that conservatives would want the easiest Democratic candidate to win the nomination, but as a realist it’s important to consider the consequences. If Clinton were to face Trump, she could actually win the Presidency and that’s a prospect that I cannot imagine. I’d rather take my chances beating a tougher candidate like Sanders than risk the farce that the country would be if Clinton somehow gets in.

    Hillary Clinton Bad President

compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help