Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders' Supporters Could Take Fight Over Democratic Party Platform to the Convention

Also, Sanders says his endorsement of Hillary Clinton is "not there at this moment."

|

Can't stop, won't stop.
Lightpainter/Dreamstime.com

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has made it clear that he intends to do everything he can to help the Democratic Party defeat Donald Trump and that he would vote for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if she were the nominee, but contrary to what Vice President Joe Biden said on NPR yesterday, Sanders told MSNBC's Chris Hayes that "We are not there at this moment" regarding a full-throated endorsement of Clinton.

One possible reason for Sanders' reluctance to go full-Clinton is the tepid support of some of his hand-picked representatives on the 15-person panel in charge with drafting the 2016 Democratic National Committee (DNC)'s platform. Although no one voted against the draft (one member reportedly abstained and another was absent for the vote), Sanders supporter and drafting committee member Bill McKibben wrote a scathing op-ed for Politico earlier this week titled, "The Clinton Campaign Is Obstructing Change to the Democratic Platform."

McKibben's main complaints centered around on environmental issues, of which he and other Sanders supporters feel Clinton is only interested in talking the talk:

We all agreed that America should be operating on 100 percent clean energy by 2050, but then I proposed, in one amendment after another, a series of ways we might actually get there. A carbon tax? Voted down 7-6 (one of the DNC delegates voted with each side). A ban on fracking? Voted down 7-6. An effort to keep fossils in the ground, at least on federal land? Voted down 7-6. A measure to mandate that federal agencies weigh the climate impact of their decisions? Voted down 7-6. Even a plan to keep fossil fuel companies from taking private land by eminent domain, voted down 7-6. (We did, however, reach unanimous consent on more bike paths!)

In other words, the Clinton campaign is at this point rhetorically committed to taking on our worst problems, but not willing to say how. Which is the slightly cynical way politicians have addressed issues for too long—and just the kind of slickness that the straightforward Sanders campaign rejected.

The approved platform draft will be voted on by a 187-member committee in Orlando, two weeks before the DNC begins in Philadelphia on July 25. Of those 187, 72 members are reportedly allied with Sanders, and they will likely advocate to have their previously voted-down initiatives included in the platform as amendments.

Sanders' policy director Warren Gunnels told Politico, "If we don't win on some of these amendments what will need to happen is there will need to be at least 40 members voting for those amendments and the same 40 members will also have to file a minority vote and that would give us an opportunity to take that minority vote to the floor of the convention in Philadelphia."

He's no longer campaigning, and his supporters are quietly coming to grips with the fact that he won't be the nominee, but Sanders' perhaps quixotic quest to radically transform the Democratic Party continues because he has thus far refused to hand over his last remaining piece of leverage: his endorsement of Clinton.

And while there won't be a knock-down, drag-out fight on the floor of the convention over delegates, Sanders and his supporters could very well ensure that the typically dull cursory coronation of the nominee will be made more interesting, and perhaps even confrontational, by insisting that their "democratic socialist" revolution is significantly recognized by the Party and it's "business as usual" presumptive nominee.

NEXT: Immigrants Are Good for the U.S. Economy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Bolsheviks never give in easily.

    1. Wouldn’t the Berntards be more of the Mensheviks at this point?

    2. I think he is among those of us hoping for an indictment.

      Not sure if he is among those of us hoping for an actual trial and conviction.

      1. “The American People are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!

        It’s past time for the damn indictments!”

  2. Just another Derplink:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/30/…..index.html

    1. I just read that ridiculous claptrap. Basically if you are against Obama’s policies you’re probably racist. Essentially black people are relieved that the identity politics is over so everyone can now get together and have friendly disagreements about the policies now that white people are going to be in charge again.

      1. Derptastic!

    2. Just look at this guy’s articles.

      1. Race, race, race, race, race, race…..

        Who’s the racist?

        Incidentally, NPR has taken to injecting race and gender into every other report. Far more so than they used to so I imagine it must have been an editorial decision.

      2. I liked his picture- I’ve seen it before, as an illustration in the dictionary for “backpfeifengesicht.”

        1. You’ve been reported for attempting to incite a hate crime.

        2. I was thinking “sitzpinkler.”

          1. These are not mutually exclusive categories.

  3. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has made it clear that he intends to do everything he can to help the Democratic Party defeat Donald Trump and that he would vote for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if she were the nominee

    … and how is that not a de facto endorsement?

    Not seeing much in the way of leverage for Bernie unless he holds out the possibility of changing his mind about either of the above.

  4. I know I certainly don’t own any guns

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..in-the-us/

    1. FTR, i lie like shit whenever anyone or any survey inquires about my gun ownership. obviously this is anecdotal.

    2. I always tell them that I have a BFG9000.

    3. A poll of ~1000 households, in the wake of a tragic mass killing where the media spent countless hours demonizing gun owners as the main cause.

      I can’t imagine why people would lie on a random poll asking if they own any guns..

  5. why do Platforms really matter? I mean, who cares what a platform says. do they really think they set up a platform so that Hillary backs off doing something that is opposed to the DNC platform?

    1. They don’t.

      Its like a company writing up a new mission statement and then ignoring it and doing what the always have done.

      Its only real purpose is to have all the people in the organization who can’t be fire but arent, get pushed into an office to write the mission statement while everyone else gets the work done without being bothered

  6. The Bern Ward can’t understand why the Democrats shouldn’t be the party of both Evil AND Stupid.

  7. Sanders told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes that “We are not there at this moment” regarding a full-throated endorsement of Clinton.

    *SF takes note*

    1. Old joke: Why did Richard Nixon watch Deep Throat?

      He wanted to get it down pat.

      1. Nice.

      2. Ok, now I get it.

  8. No fly- no buy is a bad idea, right?

    Of course, you might think that eliminating even just one gun sale to a suspected terrorist is worth the effort. But that assumes these lists should be trusted in the first place. And they shouldn’t be.

    The threats that the terrorist watch list and no-fly list pose to civil liberties ? indeed, to the very idea of citizenship ? are enormous. Watch lists are designed to circumvent the protections of due process and the separation of powers. They subvert a principle of our free society: Our rights aren’t held on loan until a government official labels us suspect, at which point they are easily stripped away; our rights are ours unless and until a court concludes that we have violated the law.

    Not if you’re a NYT commenter. The guy gets accused of being an NRA shill, among other things.

    Go ahead dive into the comments. I dares ya.

    One, at random, to whet your appewtite:

    Rebecca US 4 hours ago
    Oh please Mr. Gun Lover, are you really saying that the freedom to buy weapons is so important that it supplants our freedom to live without constant fear of being shot. Your obsession with owning guns at all costs to society is finally being questioned and seen more as the paranoid fear that it is. Your argument is ridiculous.

    Independence Day? I weep for America.

    1. Vying for dumbest comment:

      Why not create an “allowed to buy” list that anyone interested in buying a gun can ask to be put on? That would give the government a chance to vet the person and would also allow the person a chance to appeal the decision. It would protect people’s rights to purchase and own guns while still having a way to avoid selling guns to those who shouldn’t be allowed to have guns.
      It would also have the advantage that those on the list would be able to buy guns instantly and not have to wait for a background check since the check would already be done.

      1. so basically you fill out the paperwork once and that’s it? i’m in. only one NICS fee, only one 4473, no more FFL transfer fees. sign me up!

        1. Oh that’s not the intent at all.

          1. ssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

            shut the fuck up, man.

        2. Don’t you know that the intent would be to create a list that only government entities and the wealthy, connected, or famous are on?

          1. Yep. But I doubt that’s how it would be applied outside of MD, CA, NY, NJ, IL, DC, anywhere else with a magazine capacity limit.

      2. Obviously this commenter is not aware of the fact that several states do this. If you have a concealed carry permit, no need to wait for a background check before taking your new gun home.

        If you don’t have the carry permit, just fill out the 4473 and wait for the NICS check to go through or be rejected.

        The system already works, and where it doesn’t, no system would. Including a complete ban.

        1. Which is why these chatty idiots either need to get to work or shut the fuck up.

        2. I always get delayed the 3 days which is a pita. I guess I can apply for a pin number but it’s not like I buy a new tool all the time.

    2. freedom to live without constant fear of being shot

      oh shit that’s funny! i could wade through muck all day if it produced gems like that often enough.

      1. And to secure her “freedom” from irrational fear, she’d like armed goons for the state going door-to-door to ransack homes for firearms.

        At least, I *assume* she’s down with that, because there’s really no sense talking about “common-sense” regulations that will have absolutely no effect on her safety one way or another.

      2. It’s funny that people think they have a freedom to take away other people’s rights so that they can feel less afraid. I’m sure the Constitution says somewhere that all our rights are null and void if other people are scared.

    3. freedom to live without constant fear of being shot

      Rebecca must live at the Somali Arms Apartments in downtown Mogadishu.

      1. Maybe she should just go ahead and shoot herself and get it over with.

      2. It’s all those darn doors slamming and bike tires popping

    4. “Mr. Gun Lover” is the Bangles’ most underappreciated song.

  9. And, of course, costs imposed on others are the same as no costs whatsoever.

    This country is fucked.

  10. Another-

    Paul Schwartz NY 5 hours ago
    I really can’t believe this columnists point of view.

    Public safety trumps individual freedom every time. Hence prohibiting someone from shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre isn’t a violation of the first amendment.

    Anyone who is deemed potentially too dangerous to get on a plane because they might attack someone with a ball point pen, is someone I don’t want to see buying a gun. Period.

    “Save me, Jesus Nameless Infallible Government Bureaucrat!”

    1. +1 Reichstag Fire Decree

      Lambs to the slaughter.

    2. shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre

      Oh my God that fucking canard needs to die.

      1. Preferably in a fire.

    3. I would like to see not all of their other rights being waved added to the proposal. Let’s play that game,

    4. Public safety trumps individual freedom every time. Hence prohibiting someone from shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre isn’t a violation of the first amendment.

      Don’t worry, that loud popping sound isn’t gunfire, it’s several blood vessels in my brain exploding at the same time from my immeasurable rage.

    5. Public safety trumps individual freedom every time. Hence prohibiting someone from shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre isn’t a violation of the first amendment.

      I don’t see any exceptions listed in the first amendment. I also don’t see where the Constitution says “public safety trumps individual freedom every time”, or anything remotely similar. But of course, I don’t have the same Constitution as the courts seem to have.

      Anyone who is deemed potentially too dangerous to get on a plane because they might attack someone with a ball point pen, is someone I don’t want to see buying a gun. Period.

      Great, so now your rights can be taken away because someone doesn’t want to see you make use of them. And it’s not like the no-fly lists are already unconstitutional since they violate your right to due process or anything, so let’s just expand them so they also infringe upon other rights.

    6. Public safety trumps individual freedom every time. Hence prohibiting someone from shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre isn’t a violation of the first amendment.

      I don’t see any exceptions listed in the first amendment. I also don’t see where the Constitution says “public safety trumps individual freedom every time”, or anything remotely similar. But of course, I don’t have the same Constitution as the courts seem to have.

      Anyone who is deemed potentially too dangerous to get on a plane because they might attack someone with a ball point pen, is someone I don’t want to see buying a gun. Period.

      Great, so now your rights can be taken away because someone doesn’t want to see you make use of them. And it’s not like the no-fly lists are already unconstitutional since they violate your right to due process or anything, so let’s just expand them so they also infringe upon other rights.

  11. “We all agreed that America should be operating on 100 percent clean energy by 2050…..”

    Which indicates that he is a 100 percent moron.

    1. Oh so the progs are finally ready to accept nuclear power? They must really think climate change is a serious problem. /sarc

      1. I doubt they’d call Nuclear “clean”.

        1. Vermont recently shut down their only nuclear reactor, which generated about a third of the power used by the entire state. Officially it was for ‘economic reasons’, but this was after several years of legal battles with the state legislature, who felt that they should have a say in what was safe, not the NRC.

          1. You know what else comes out of Vermont?

            1. Hillary Clinton’s “gun pipeline to New York?”

              http://www.politifact.com/trut…..s-gun-pip/

            2. Hillary Clinton’s “gun pipeline to New York?”

              http://www.politifact.com/trut…..s-gun-pip/

            3. Overrated, overpriced ice cream?

            4. Almost 70% of 20 somethings

          2. There are two more closing in New England over the next few years as well.

      2. “Nuclear power isn’t a viable option because it takes so long to build plants. Even if we started today, a new plant wouldn’t come online for twenty years.”

        “We need to address climate change immediately because problems may happen a century from now!”

        1. The only kind of power that they really care about is the power to increasingly boss other people around.

          Everything they blather about energy, guns or any other subject is really only about furthering that kind of power.

          1. If it weren’t for hypocrisy they’d have no pocrisy at all.

            1. +1 Gloom, despair and agony on me.

    2. If he starts now, he might be able to pull his head out of his ass by 2050.

  12. Maybe if you wanted more impact on the Democratic platform you shouldn’t have spend decades refusing to be part of their organization.

  13. A question on campaign finance. In an article about Clinton outspending Trump on TV each day by a count of $500k to zero, Bloomberg details how the Clinton campaign is coordinating their TV spending with her top SuperPac. Her campaign is spending in the cheaper markets and letting the superpac run all the ads in the pricier markets.

    I thought this kind of collusion was specifically illegal? Isn’t direct coordination between campaign and PAC against the law? There is no way to run ads in this manner without detailed coordination of the actions of the PAC and the actions of the campaign.

    Does anyone know? Is this still the way the law works?

    1. I blame Citizens United.

    2. I thought this kind of collusion was specifically illegal?

      Like running an unsecured private server with state secrets on it?

      1. Or soliciting donations from foreign entities while Secretary of State?

        1. Or perjuring yourself before Congress?

          1. or blaming a YouTube video for the deaths of multiple soldiers and one ambassador in an overt attack.

            1. whoops, I guess not illegal. pretty thoroughly immoral though.

              How about this.

              Obstructing justice by refusing to turn over Rose Law Firm records for years.

    3. So in other words, no, nobody here knows.

      C’mon guys…. this snarky bunch of know-it-alls has to have at least one person who is up on the current state of federal election law as regards superpacs working with campaigns.

      Sheesh. I may as well have asked reddit.

      (great snark, BTW)

  14. Apparently the Reason staff are starting the holiday weekend a bit early.

    When does the open thread open?

  15. We all agreed that America should be operating on 100 percent clean energy by 2050

    TOP. PEOPLE.

    Somehow they think the great lesson of the 20th century is that a small group of political apparatchicks can successfully dictate the direction and rate of change of an entire economy for the next 3 decades from the comfort of their conference-room.

    because seriously, it worked so well before when they called them “Great Leaps Forward” and stuff.

  16. He’s no longer campaigning, and his supporters are quietly coming to grips with the fact that he won’t be the nominee, but Sanders’ perhaps quixotic quest to radically transform the Democratic Party continues because he has thus far refused to hand over his last remaining piece of leverage: his endorsement of Clinton.

    So publicly saying he would vote for her isn’t an endorsement?

    Could someone explain politics to me please?

    1. I’m no expert, but just saying “I’ll vote for her” then going back home to study Marx’s 18th Brumaire isn’t the sort of support Hillary wants.

      She wants him stumping the really blue states, telling voters they have a duty to oppose Trump by voting Hillary.

      I wonder what he’s holding out for? Secretary of Commerce? They gave it to Henry Wallace.

      1. I wonder what he’s holding out for?

        Politburo

  17. [joke about “the only appropriate socialist platform” deleted for legal reasons]

    1. It’s not the platform itself that’s important, it’s the height of the gibbet and the length of the rope. And it’s not just for socialists.

      1. And speaking of gibbets and ropes – here’s a good piece on the OpenTheBooks report on just how many armed government agents there are.

        Yes, bureaucrats occasionally have to deal with potentially dangerous people. And even if they’re enforcing rules that shouldn’t exist, I think they have every right to be protected. But in those rare instances, why not simply call up the local cops and ask for an escort? Would that really be asking too much?

        I think he’s misssing the point, though – having to borrow your muscle from another agency means there’s an opportunity for that agency to second-guess your enforcement decision and decline to go along. It’s like a cop needing to get a warrant – ideally, he has to convince a neutral third party that he does indeed have probable cause to pursue an investigation. (Yes, *ideally*, shut up.) If you’ve got your own goon squad, though, and SCOTUS has already signed off on your independence as far as interpreting your own regulations and whether or not you’re following them, you’re your own judge, jury, and executioner, ain’t ya?

        If the President can ignore the Constitution, why can’t the head of the EPA ignore both the Constitution and the President? Well, with enough firepower, now she can.

  18. I, and all right-thinking people, believe America should be a gun free pacifist paradise, ruled by mind-reading wizards and powered by perpetual motion machines.

    Any heretic who disagrees should be burned at the stake.

    1. Fire!?!??! Not fire, that causes carbon and stuff. They should be fed to polar bears as an apology.

      1. But only after a sufficient period has elapsed to cleanse all growth hormones and antibiotics from their bodies.

  19. Ugh,Bill McKibben is involved? That guy shouldn’t have any influence on environmental policy whatsoever.

  20. Bernie Sanders’ Supporters Could Take Fight Over Democratic Party Platform to the Convention
    Also, Sanders says his endorsement of Hillary Clinton is “not there at this moment.”

    It is a sad day indeed when a true socialist turd, like Comrade Bernie, cannot be elevated into the Democrat’s (or Republican) party to become the occupant of the White House Dascha. What a wonderful socialist slaver he would’ve been! He would raised taxes to the point of economic ruin, created more needless, useless feel good, touchy-feely bureaucracies, imprisoned anyone who disagreed with him on “climate change,” etc. Comrade Bernie would have accelerated the Glorious People’s Revolution here in Amerika to the point of a successful conclusion and thus created the much coveted socialist slave state we all want and need. But alas, the doubters in the Democratic party are too weak and cowardly to accept the realities of history and push Comrade Bernie and Amerika to the elevated heights of oppression and economic stagnation socialism promises and delivers so well.
    We should all weep openly at this missed opportunity.

  21. I imagine the only way Hillary is going to get Barnie Sander’s full endorsement is if she too, promises every American their own Free Unicorn, and adopts the campaign slogan: “Socialism + Pixie Dust + Victory!”.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.