Reactions to tonight’s New Hampshire debate:
- Listening to Bernie Sanders demonize Wall Street bankers is almost as tiresome as listening to Trump talk about illegal immigrants.
- I wish someone would tell Bernie that: (a) while money frequently makes a difference in our political system, campaign contributions are a small part of a much larger issue, which mostly revolves around effective lobbying; (b) red states are not red because billionaires make huge campaign contributions to GOP candidates; and (c) even if you incorrectly assume that contributions are responsible for all of our political ills, it would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of Citizens United, and he can’t possibly get enough votes for that, even if the “revolution” is a success.
- When Bernie described his “revolution” for the umpteenth time, he said that the inevitable surge in voter turnout would help Democrats hold the Senate and regain governorships; he did not, however, say that control of the House was attainable. If that is the case (and it is), then how will it be possible to pass his agenda? His omission was effectively an admission that the revolution won’t happen.
- Clinton opposes the TPP for reasons smacking of political opportunism. Sanders, on the other hand, rejects free trade out of principle, which is actually worse. Sanders and Trump are in fundamental agreement on this point. Perhaps someone should remind him that the manufacturing jobs lost to China and Vietnam were not caused by a free trade agreement.
- Fees paid to Clinton for speeches made when she was out of office did not, and could not, come with a quid pro quo other than the speech itself. Sanders and his supporters have the burden of showing that some other consideration was anticipated and given. I haven’t seen any evidence of it.
- Pragmatism and inauthenticity are not the same thing.