Why Don’t Liberals Call Out Feel the Bern’s Lies?

 

 

So, what’s the deal with American liberals? When a Republican lies, liberals can’t wait to call them pathological liars like they should. But when a Democrat running for president lies, liberals say it’s a mistake, it’s misconstrued, taken out-of-context or else the candidate bitches about the other side beating up on him. More to the point; during the last week Bernie Sanders lied more than once; including after ambushing Pope Francis in his hotel. But liberals won’t say he lied.

The lies started the day Bernie Sanders announced on MSNBC and repeated on ABC’s The View that he was invited to the Vatican for a conversation with the Pope. As a Vatican expert wrote; the Pope or the Vatican never invited Bernie Sanders to anything. His foreign policy adviser Jeffrey Sachs and his public relations friend used their connections to get Sanders an invitation to speak for at a school conference for ten minutes. He wasn’t invited to Vatican to speak with the Pope.

After hearing a week’s worth of news reports that Bernie was summoned to the Vatican to talk to the Pope, implying he would get a papal endorsement, the real Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi had to announce that “Senator Sanders was not invited by the pope, but by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.” Lombardi also said that the Pope would not be meeting with the candidate, Bernie Sanders because Francis doesn’t get involved in elections or politics and he was going to Greece.

So who continues lying when the Vatican and papal spokesman releases an official Vatican statement exposing a week-long lie? The Sanders’ campaign, that’s who. Instead of staying on the down-low and praying to god that people forget you just lied about the Pope, Sanders’ campaign punked the Pope; and then they lied some more.

According to the Sanders’ campaign, the night before he gave his speech at the school, the Pope sent a message that he changed his mind and wanted to have a meeting with him before he went to Greece. According to a gullible website that believed a Sanders’ acolyte who set up the speech at the school conference;

“While Sanders was having dinner later on Friday night, he learned that the pope would like to meet before leaving for Greece.”

This is despite the Pope announcing the day before he would not be meeting with Sanders. Because besides heading to Greece to talk about the refugees, he never gets involved with candidates during an election. In fact, sources at the real Vatican reportedly refused to return calls to Sanders’ campaign prior to his trip to Rome, and insiders closest to the Holy Father claimed the Pope didn’t want Sanders there at all. He didn’t want the distraction and he doesn’t get involved with candidates for office.

What the Pope wanted didn’t matter because Sanders and his foreign policy adviser Jeffrey Sachs wanted to make that pesky week-old lie go away; come hell or high water and at the expense of the Catholic pope.

The Politico story said “Bernie Sanders privately met with Pope Francis after all at the pontiff’s residence in Vatican City on Saturday morning before the pope left on a trip for Greece. The Democratic presidential candidate was joined by his wife Jane, advisor Jeffrey Sachs, Sachs’ wife, and Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo — who translated — for a roughly five-minute meeting before Pope Francis left for a trip to Greece. There were no photographs taken of the pope and Sanders together.”

Bernie Sanders knew damn well the story was a lie and he never refuted it because, hey, it made his other lies not lies; it’s what makes them pathological. And since no liberal will call him a liar nobody was going to contradict Bernie or dispute his telling of the “five minute meeting.” Good thing Pope Francis isn’t a liberal because he told a completely different version of the meeting that makes everything Bernie Sanders said a lie.

Since the Bern and crew were staying at the same hotel as the Pope and they knew about when he was leaving, something the Pope felt compelled to tell reporters, the Bern crew hung out in the lobby waiting for the Pope to descend for the ambush. According to the Pope, a man that isn’t known for lying and has no reason to;

This morning when I left, Sen. Sanders was there. … He knew I was leaving at that time. I had the kindness to greet him and his wife and another couple who were with them. When I came down, I greeted them, shook their hands and nothing more. This is good manners. It’s called good manners and not getting mixed up in politics. If anyone thinks that greeting someone means getting involved in politics, they should see a psychiatrist.”

It sounds like the poor pope was virtually ambushed in the lobby as he was leaving for Greece to pick up some refugees and bring them back to Rome. It also sounds like it was important to him to dispel the lie that he had a five minute sit-down meeting with Sanders. It is funny the Pope said “anyone that thinks that greeting someone means getting involved in politics should see a psychiatrist” because feeltheberns still think the pope is lying and that he is endorsing Bernie’s campaign.

The Bern’s fanatical followers are candidates for a psychiatric visit according to the pope; they claimed the Pope endorsed Sanders for president and there are official Bernie Sanders campaign posters all over the social media with pictures of the pope and a small child as if Francis is officially part of the campaign. It’s a lie, but hey, pathological liars can’t help themselves, right? At least that’s what liberals always say when they catch a Republican lying.

Does America have a law that says nobody can call out lies when they’re from the left? It’s an honest question because there’s been a solid week of Sanders lies that nobody calls lies. Know what’s a lie? Liberals calling themselves honest when they’re scared shitless to call out another liberal’s lies.

Bernie Sanders lied and the only guy on the planet with courage to say he lied is the pope. True, he didn’t call Bernie a liar in so many words, but he did take the time to do something no-one else would do; tell the world that Bernie’s version of the story wasn’t true. On the street “the story wasn’t true” means somebody lied.

Bernie Sanders Didn’t Lie – He Blamed Media Because He Believed a Lie

 

It is, or it can be, easy to get caught up during a hotly-contested campaign and make statements that one might reconsider making after the fact. But if that  is the case, the wise thing to do is “walk back” the offending statement as elegantly as possible and if the statement was based on a gross error, or dog forbid a blatant lie, then admit the misstep, apologize, and move forward with the campaign.

Over the past couple of days all the rage has been the two Democratic candidates for the nomination claiming their opponent is “unqualified to be president.” The only problem is that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never said Senator Bernie Sanders is unqualified to be president; even though she was given three prime opportunities to do so.

In fact, Mrs. Clinton was pressured by MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, three times, to state categorically that “Senator Sanders is not qualified to be president.” She refused to be dragged into what is typical of Republican politicians Scarborough is used to easily manipulating into saying what he wanted to hear. Hillary Clinton is not a Republican, and since she is very dedicated to maintaining Democratic unity, she was not about to be manipulated by the likes of “Morning Joe.”

Apparently, Senator Sanders, or his staff, failed to verify reports that Mrs. Clinton said on national television that he was unqualified to serve as president, so he reciprocated during a campaign speech. He said,

She has been saying, lately, that she thinks that I am quote-unquote ‘not qualified to be president.’ Let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton that I don’t believe she is qualified if she is, through her Super Pac, taking tens of millions from special interests.”

Now there are two specific problems with the Senator’s remarks. First and foremost; Hillary Clinton never said Sanders is unqualified despite being aggressively pressed on the issue three times. Second, taking special interest money does not make a candidate “unqualified to be president.”

If that were the case then Senator Sanders is as unqualified as he claims Mrs. Clinton is because he takes millions in special interest money as well; including from wealthy Hollywood elites and there is nothing wrong with it. It is, unfortunately, the nature of American politics and not a reason for either of Democratic candidates to be considered “unqualified” to serve.

What is wrong is that the Senator reacted negatively, and hastily, to something that never occurred. It is curious that no-one on his campaign staff alerted him that regardless what he might have heard, or wanted to believe about Mrs. Clinton, she refused to stoop so low as to say he was unqualified to serve despite being “aggressively pressed” three times. As one writer notedMrs. Clinton did what a ‘statesman’ would do;” take the high road to maintain unity with the Democratic base.

It took a day or so, but Senator Sanders did kind of walk back his statement regarding Mrs. Clinton’s qualifications to serve, but he blamed the media during a press conference yesterday for instigating his untoward remark about Mrs. Clinton’s qualifications. Senator Sanders even said he did not want to get into “that type of politics.”

This is not the type of politics that I want to get in, I know it’s what the media loves. It is not the type of politics that I want to get in, but let me also be very clear. If Secretary Clinton thinks that I just come from the small state of Vermont, we are not used to this, we will get used to it fast.”

Maybe that is how they apologize and say I made a mistake in  Vermont, but if that is the case it was unconvincing and likely irritated a few more on the left. The simplest thing to tell the press, his supporters, and the American people was not about being a victim of the media, but that he simply overreacted before vetting what he believed was a slight against his character and qualifications.

As noted by other columnists, “Simply calling your opponent ‘unqualified’ isn’t necessarily the wisest thing to do, but if it’s how you feel, it also isn’t necessarily earth-shattering heresy.”  Unless, however, that comment is based on a blatant lie with video verification it was a blatant lie; no matter where the lie originated. Senator Sanders’ comment rankled Hillary supporters and no small number of Democrats,  but a different response from the Senator would have allowed them to get over it and have a new sense of respect for Bernie and his campaign.

Even after learning it was lie, it was  unforgivable to shift the blame to the media; it is what Republicans do and it is beneath Senator Sanders as a man of integrity. It does not take any effort to say “I was wrong, I overreacted and I shouldn’t have; I apologize.” A comment like that would go a long ways to combat the “Bernie Lied” articles making the rounds on the Internet. What Bernie did was overreact to a lie, but made it worse by blaming the media instead of his campaign.

As yet another columnist commented, this nominating primary is not some kind of amateur game without serious consequences for the entire nation. It is all well and good to fight for the nomination, but as noted here, here, and here, anything serving to divide the left is a win for Republicans. It is exactly why the Karl Rove types are spending tens-of-millions to feed the “Left’s” smear campaign against Mrs. Clinton’s character.

Senator Sanders says he does not want to get into dirty politicking and that he wants to lead the most powerful nation on earth.  But as mentioned here, “if he can’t admit a simple mistake or apologize for it – which is what blame-shifting amounts to – his qualifications for the Democratic nomination may be fine. It’s his character that becomes a matter of debate.”

It is too bad that instead of a simple apology and “a strong walk-back by Senator Sanders himself,” Bernie made it look like he can be easily manipulated by a headline; one he was quick to blame for leading him to engage in exactly “the type of politics” he says does not want to get into. It is too late though, because blaming the media just defined the “type of politics” the Democratic campaign is now into and that is indeed very sad and unproductive.

Bernie Sanders Will Ask President Obama to Withdraw His SCOTUS Nominee

 

 

Anyone who has ever been in a position of authority and responsibility, particularly over a large number of people, comprehends that there are very few decisions that will please everyone; it is just human nature. The idea of “pleasing everyone” becomes even more impossible in politics; especially when it is an Executive Branch decision, and particularly when one political party objects to every decision made by the sitting President.

President Obama likely knew that it wouldn’t have mattered who he nominated to replace Antonin Scalia as an associate justice to the nation’s highest court. In fact, he may not have been very surprised at the instantaneous assertion by Republicans in the Senate that they would not give a fair hearing to any nominee to the Supreme Court. By now, anyone with a pulse is aware that Republicans claim it is not within the current President’s constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice and that it is the responsibility of the next president.

Now, it has been reported in the mainstream media everywhere that presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I, D, VT) said that if he wins the Democratic nomination for president and the general election in November, he will ask President Obama to withdraw his Supreme Court justice nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. Apparently, Senator Sanders believes, like every Republican, that the decision to nominate the “right” kind of Supreme Court justice is better left to the next president; but only if it is Bernie Sanders.

Senator Sanders told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that, “I think I’m 100 percent prepared to support Judge Garland. I think he’s clearly very knowledgeable and can serve ably on the Supreme Court. But, there are more progressive judges out there.” Sanders insists that any Supreme Court nominee would have to meet his litmus test that entails “being loud and clear that he or she will overturn the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision.” So there it is again; expecting a prospective SCOTUS justice to publicly make a political pledge to overturn a prior Court decision that is not before the court as if there is not a regular established process for the nation’s High Court to hear a case.

Likely surprised at the presidential candidate’s naïveté, and audacity, Sanders was asked specifically if he would directly ask President Obama to withdraw Judge Garland’s name, forsake his Constitutional authority and duty as President, to allow Bernie Sanders to nominate a judge because they pledged in advance to overturn a previous SCOTUS ruling; the Vermont senator said, “Yes I would.” Without conflating Senator Sanders’ remarks about him being better qualified to choose the “right” kind of nominee to Republican obstruction for obstruction’s sake, there are a couple of issues worth addressing.

First and foremost; the decision to nominate a prospective Justice is the purview of the current President; whoever wins the November election should not factor in to any Presidential consideration. Second, whoever the current or next president nominates will have to go through the intense and often combative Senate confirmation process. There may well be “more progressive” judges available for the nomination, but it is general knowledge that judges on the federal benches do not wear their politics on the sleeves. It is true all judges have political leanings, but part and parcel of being any kind of judge, much less a Supreme Court justice, is not being blatantly partisan; the deceased Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas notwithstanding.

Putting aside the appearance of audacity and hubris of even expecting a sitting President to withdraw his Supreme Court nominee because he is not progressive enough for the as-yet-unelected or inaugurated next president, there is still a problem with expecting the High Court to overturn a previous decision on partisan political principle. It is an issue that came up a couple of months ago when Senator Sanders said in a Tweet that, “Any Supreme Court nominee of mine will make overturning Citizens United one of their first decisions.”

At first blush that statement reeks of ignorance of the federal judiciary, but it cannot be put down to some campaign underling tweeting out nonsense without Senator Sanders’ knowledge and approval. Last November Senator Sanders said the same thing; “No nominee of mine to the United States Supreme Court will get that job unless he or she is loud and clear that one of their first orders of business will be to overturn Citizens United.”

Senator Sanders is an establishment politician with a quarter century worth of experience in Congress and is very well aware of how the High Court works. Unlike the federal legislature that has the freedom to take up, or blow off, any issue at will, court cases must go through “numerous and lengthy procedural hoops before they can be heard or decided by any court.” This is particularly true of the nation’s highest Court by design of the U.S. Constitution. As noted several times by judicial experts and savvy eighth grade civics students alike; “it would be impossible for any Sanders’ nominee to the High Court to guarantee that any case would be one of their first orders of business and decisions;” especially as an “Associate Justice” on the nine-justice Supreme Court.

The U.S. Constitution contains two significant limits on the justices’ ability to set their own schedule in Article III. Article III limits the federal judiciary’s authority to “cases” or “controversies” that have long been understood to require that two parties that have a genuine conflict with each other before a federal court can intervene and settle the issue.

Even a super-duper newly-appointed progressive justice needs to follow Constitutional procedures and wait for the case they were “loud and clear about overturning” to go through the federal appellate court system. Any semi-knowledgeable civics student knows that “the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court only has appellate jurisdiction over the overwhelming majority of cases.” What that means is that the High Court justices, or one super progressive High Court Justice, cannot decide to consider a matter until after it has been decided and appealed by several lower courts.

What continues to be an unanswered question is exactly how Senator Sanders would convince hardline Republican senators to support and confirm a “more progressive judge” any more than they would support the “socialistic policies” Senator Sanders espouses. It is yet unclear how a different “Democratic” president will fare any better with Republicans in Congress than President Obama, but parroting “political revolution” is not going to be any more convincing or productive.

There are millions of Americans who want the disastrous Citizens United ruling overturned, just like there are a substantial number of evangelical fanatics who want Roe v. Wade overturned; but neither is going to happen because a prospective Supreme Court Justice pledges “loud and clear” that “one of their first orders of business is overturning” _________ (fill-in-the blank). What is also not going to happen is President Barack Obama withdrawing his nominee to replace Antonin Scalia on the High Court based on who wins the general election in November, or because Republicans want to make the choice.

No doubt there are more progressive and liberal judges ‘out there’ that the President could have nominated, but he chose a highly-qualified jurist that has a reasonable chance of being confirmed. What bothers many Democrats is that although Senator Sanders said he is certain he will support Merrick Garland’s nomination, “it is still surprising that a politician running for the Democratic presidential nomination has openly criticized the current Democratic president’s nominee.” What is really surprising is why any pundit is surprised that a politician running for the Democratic presidential nomination is still openly criticizing the current Democratic President at all.

Petulant Bernie-Brats Determined To Hand Republicans the White House

It is likely that most people have had the uncomfortable experience of being in the vicinity of petulant children at some time in their lives. One can almost excuse badly-parented brats who become angry and annoyed when they do not get what they want, but when allegedly well-educated adults do it, it is inexcusable. Americans are accustomed to petulant Republicans, or they should be after seven straight years of grown adults refusing to do their jobs because they failed to get what they want. But now it looks as if, like many things in this political environment, many pretend progressives, socialists, and “Democrats” are mimicking petulant Republicans and their teabagger cohorts.

Apparently, because they are angry and annoyed that they have not gotten exactly what they want, “as a protest thousands and thousands of Senator Bernie Sanders’ supporters are making plans and preparations to exit the Democratic Party.” Their complaint is that as a result of Sanders joining the Party, Democrats have moved so far to the right and away from the people who actually vote they are left with no option but to “stage a revolt within the Democratic party itself.”

Likely, it is may not be what Senator Sanders had in mind when he told his supporters America needs “a political revolution,” and hopefully not what he wants his supporters to do; at least one hopes that’s not his plan.  In fact, this screed is not really about Bernie Sanders, or Hillary Clinton for that matter. It is certainly not any kind of endorsement of a candidate. Liberal opinion columnists are not allowed to have opinions about any Democrat or a preference about which candidate wins the nomination; all Democrats are perfect. It is just too bad, and it could turn out to be too sad, that all progressives, socialists, and Democrats do not hew to that mindset; especially the petulant “bernieorbust” movement.

This self-titled “bernieorbustmovement claims that ever since Senator Bernie Sanders called for a political revolution, “the Democratic establishment started conspiring against them at every turn.” Never mind that Senator Sanders is a career politician that fits anyone’s definition of  “the establishment,” the idea that “the establishment” is out to get Senator Sanders’ supporters is sheer madness. Frankly, it reeks of the religious right’s paranoia and fanaticism; and a healthy dose of gross political ignorance.

The “bernieorbust” crew also strangely asserts that former president Bill Clinton committed election fraud in Massachusetts even though he is not running for office. They also claim that Democrats “fixed coin flips” in Iowa, and they rigged the Democratic debates to stop the Bern’s “storied” political revolution. A revolution they claim the Democratic National Committee will not allow to transpire any more than it will allow “their race to run fair and square to ‘let’ the best candidate win.” Seriously, if anyone is curious about what exactly constitutes a conspiracy theory, just re-read the last two sentences a couple of times. It is madness that threatens Democrats up and down the ballot in November.

The “bernieorbust” movement says, “If we the people of the Democratic party can get 5 million or 10 million Democrats to leave to leave the party enmasse (sic), and go to or form a NEW and better party, the DNC would be a LOT more hesitant to go up against us.” The grand plan is to “show the Democratic National Committee that Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz single-handedly caused a mass exodus from the party. And that she and Hillary Clinton are working to divide the party, not unite it, then we truly get the change inside the Democratic Party we demand.”

According to the “bernieorbust” movement, if their revolt to transform the Democratic Party into something more palatable to politically ignorant American “socialists” and petulant “progressive” brats, they will start up “in a brand new party, who’s (sic) main platforms are all what Bernie has been fighting for without a single establishment candidate running.”

This is exactly what no small number of liberal pundits have warned the left about for a couple of months to no avail. Now a new Wall Street Journal poll shows the pundits are not remotely off base with their warnings. According to the WSJ poll, 33 percent of Senator Sanders’ supporters claim that if their candidate is not the nominee, they will stay home in November and let the devastation of 2010 and 2014 put a Republican in the White House. Their goal is to teach the DNC the same lesson the EmoProgs thought they were teaching Barack Obama in 2010 when he annoyed them by not letting them have everything little thing they wanted. The resulting teabagger takeover and damage to the nation needs no comment.

This opposition attitude is not entirely unprecedented on the left. In 2008 some Hillary Clinton supporters embraced the “PUMA” (party unity my ass) moniker and refused to vote for eventual nominee and brilliant President Barack Obama. However, this time it is different because the bernieorbust folks believe if their candidate is the nominee and does win the White House, they will get all the “free stuff” Senator Sanders has never really promised them would be “free stuff.”

They want their “free healthcare, free college, and free union membership” even though Sanders has told them “that nothing is free” and that everyone, including the poor, will pay higher taxes for all that alleged “free” stuff. In fact, every ‘bernieorbust’ acolyte can see right here that the Sanders’ tax plan is a three-tiered rate system in which everyone will have to pay higher taxes for all that “free stuff.” It is how socialism works and if the bernieorbust folks were not politically ignorant they would know it and stop being brats.

These petulant brats’ actions and threats are not necessarily down to Senator Sanders by any means. In fact, one seriously doubts that many of the Bern Brats are even Democrats who will “leave the DNC en masse;” it is certain they are not progressives. Democrats and progressives are, for the most part, pragmatic voters who comprehend that in this or any other political environment one group or one socialist man does not and cannot enact anything without cooperation from Republicans. It is sheer political ignorance to believe otherwise.

It is one thing to be passionate about a candidate, but to plan and prepare to take down the only party serving as a firewall against a corporate theocracy Hell-bent and duty bound to eviscerate America is evil and vindictive. One would like to believe that this new bernieorbust faction is just emoting passion, but they have been so programmed by Karl Rove and the Koch brothers to literally hate Bernie’s opponent that as an increasing number of pundits warn, their petulance may put a Republican in the White House; something that is beginning to look like their real intent.

A Real Democrat Would Not Criticize President Obama During A Primary Race

 

 

Anyone who is new to a group or an organization they have spent years assailing usually would lay low and refrain from attacking the group’s popular leader; at least if they expect to be embraced and regarded as someone who can contribute anything positive to the movement’s mission. One thing that most Americans comprehend, whether they are interested in and follow politics, or are members of a violent street gang, is that it is generally not a good idea to join up with an organization and then criticize its leader.

This screed has nothing to do with endorsing or criticizing any candidate for president; it is about being sick to death of hearing a “neophyte Democrat” parrot EmoProg criticism that President Barack Obama is a bad and ineffective leader. Although those were not Senator Bernie Sanders exact words, he did question the leadership skills of President Barack Obama and claimed that as a new Democrat he will close the “divide between government and Americans that President Obama opened wide throughout his presidency.”

It is curious that, like his EmoProg acolytes, Bernie Sanders is unaware that whatever “divide” he perceives exists between Americans and Congress is due to contrasting political ideology, racism, religious fundamentalism and Republicans; not President Barack Obama. President Obama is not a member of either chamber in Congress; he leads the Executive Branch of government. Besides, this latest claim that President Obama is divisive, or responsible for a gap between Americans and government, is a tired Republican accusation that does not carry any more weight coming from a Democrat than a Republican; even if it is a new Democrat.

The Vermont Senator said, “There’s a huge gap right now between Congress and the American people. What presidential leadership is about is closing that gap.” To be fair, he did acknowledge the President tried to bridge the divide, but he said Obama has failed and Bernie knows the reason why; “We need a political revolution bringing millions and millions of people into the political process in a way that does not exist right now.” So there it was; “blame the Black man” for not waving a magic wand and morphing Republicans in Congress, the Supreme Court, evangelical fanatics, and angry racists into Democrats; and for not bringing about political revolution.

This “political revolution” meme again; the one the Vermont senator confesses is necessary to fulfill the “free college and free healthcare” pledge he thinks Republicans in Congress and tens-of-millions of conservative voters will embrace with open arms. As John Lennon said regarding people who want a revolution; “We’d all love to see the plan.” And no, repeating that term “political revolution” ad nauseam is not a plan and  is not going to transform America’s conservative majority, or the Republican-dominated Congress, into a population that will embrace what Republicans will scream is “socialism and more free stuff.”

The divide Sanders believes President Obama failed to close between the American people and Congress is political, ideological and religious; something beyond the purview of a mere human being elected as President. Besides, it was millions of American people who put Republicans in charge of Congress with valuable assistance from the same EmoProg people who claim President Obama is a failure, a lousy progressive, and unable to “close the gap between the American people and Congress.”

A prescient question for the Sanders’ campaign is exactly how will the senator will “bridge the gap between the American people and Congress;” particularly when he has been ineffective in bridging the gap between Senate Republicans and Democrats, or Senate Democrats and himself. After all, in a quarter century or so in Congress a record of three bills signed into law does not speak favorably about any secret ability to  “close a gap” between ideological opposites; exactly the same situation that exists among the American people. The so-called “gap” between Congress and the voters is certainly not going to be bridged because Senator Sanders’ ideas are new or a revelation to the people; they are old ideas minority Democrats embrace and majority Republicans oppose vehemently.

President Obama has called for higher wages, money out of politics, wealth redistribution, and affordable college since before he was sworn into office. In fact, Joe the plumber became a right-wing celebrity because of an exchange between then-presidential candidate Obama and an “aspiring” plumbing contractor in 2008. The exchange was over candidate Obama’s pledge to address income inequality; specifically tax cuts and wealth redistribution. And, as a revelation to the senator’s “historically” ignorant EmoProg backers, Sanders’ opponent for the Democratic nomination crusaded for “universal healthcarein 1993 as First Lady. It is what began the nearly 24 year “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her and the same one many feeltheberns are aiding the Koch brothers and Karl Rove perpetuate today.

Perhaps it is naïveté, or ignorance, but Senator Sanders is not helping his case with Democrats who have been staunch supporters of President Obama. Senator Sanders’ criticism of the President in particular and Democrats in general is nothing new, but it is getting old and as damned irritating as EmoProgs and HamWalds attacking the President in 2009. If President Obama had been a catastrophic failure, one would understand a new Democrat attacking his policies, agenda, and missteps; but that has not been the case and up till now only Republicans, teabaggers, EmoProgs, racists, and religious fanatics don’t get it.

For most Democrats, President Obama has done a miraculous job in the face of the most extreme obstructionism and outright opposition likely ever in America’s history, and only Republicans, teabaggers, racists, religious fundamentalists and Sanders’ EmoProg movement disagree. Obama Democrats don’t like it when Republicans attack their President and it is curious that anyone would think it is acceptable when a Democrat does it; even if they are a new Democrat who seems to think they are running a campaign against Barack Obama.