Bernie shoots off his mouth on behalf of gun manufacturers

The revolutionary Bernie Sanders should stop shooting off his mouth and smile more. More than anything else, it's that shooting off his mouth in support of gun manufacturers that's getting Bernie into trouble lately - pointing his finger and waving his arms around like an out of control windmill doesn't help his case.

Oh, and Bernie seemed a bit insensitive in his response to the lawsuit recently filed by parents of children murdered at Sandy Hook. Mark and Jackie Barden, plaintiffs in the case, poured some cold water on "feel the Bern" Sanders and his supporters. The Bardens' op-ed at the Washington Post should make Sanders and company more careful in their response to families who have lost loved ones to weapons like Remington’s Bushmaster AR-15.

Mark and Jackie Barden are plaintiffs in the case Soto et. al v. Bushmaster. 

 

Our son, our sweet little Daniel, was just 7 when he was murdered in his first-grade classroom at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012. We are among the 10 families suing the manufacturer, distributor and retail seller of the assault rifle that took 26 lives in less than five minutes on that terrible day.

We write in response to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s comments about our lawsuit at the recent Democratic presidential debate in Michigan. Sanders suggested that the “point” of our case is to hold Remington Arms Co. liable simply because one of its guns was used to commit mass murder. With all due respect, this is simplistic and wrong. 

This case is about a particular weapon, Remington’s Bushmaster AR-15, and its sale to a particular market: civilians. It is not about handguns or hunting rifles, and the success of our lawsuit would not mean the end of firearm manufacturing in this country, as Sanders warned. This case is about the AR-15 because the AR-15 is not an ordinary weapon; it was designed and manufactured for the military to increase casualties in combat. The AR-15 is to guns what a tank is to cars: uniquely deadly and suitable for specialized use only.

Read More:

NY Times columnist Frank Bruni's "less savory" qualities

Hillary speaks to supporters on Roosevelt Island,AP

Even as Hillary Clinton emerges victorious on Super Tuesday, the sexism prevails as evidenced in none other than Frank Bruni's column in the NY Times in which Frank suggests, among other blatantly sexist accusations, that Hillary exhibits "unrestrained ambition." 

Uh, Frank, have you noticed over the years that presidential candidates are by and large ambitious, or do you just criticize a female candidate for exhibiting ambition?

By the way, Frank, folks like you apparently haven't noticed, or maybe you've noticed, but resent Hillary for being able to keep her family intact and maintain several longtime friendships throughout her years of public service - that says a lot about this woman that you so assiduously mock throughout your ugly and misguided attempt to undermine her character.

In one of his backhanded compliments of Hillary, Bruni speaks of her successes on Super Tuesday. He insists his view is a "legitimate perspective." Frank, a sexist diatribe against a woman who has been voted the most admired woman in the world for many years doesn't seem that "legitimate."

You can look at Hillary Clinton’s path to this juncture and marvel at how difficult she has often made things for herself, creating messes where there didn’t need to be any, frittering away advantages, misunderstanding the mood of voters, underestimating the mettle of opponents, and failing to cement an image — and a message — that seemed authentic and right.

That’s a legitimate perspective. She’s a deeply flawed politician.

We need to remind ourselves that Bruni's shoddy column mentioned above isn't exactly original in its attempt to shame Hillary for - OMG!  - having ambitions for the White House. Her critics have faulted her for having ambition for years; whereas, I've yet to see a male political candidate for public office criticized for having ambition??!!

So while attacking Hillary in one breath, Bruni urges us, with all the condescension he can muster, to "give Hillary her moment, because she fought her way here." He then continues to distort the facts of Hillary's longtime career in public service.

Wonder if Bruni noticed that his paper, the NY Times, endorsed Hillary awhile back? Probably not. He's obviously behind the times, no pun intended. In his column titled "Clinton's Moment," Bruni unashamedly claims his perspective on Hillary is "legitimate:"


Speaking of backhanded compliments, Bruni adds this note to his not so subtle put downs of Hillary Clinton:

We were seeing the vindication of a fortitude and fierceness that warrant as much notice as her less savory qualities.

Her less savory qualities?

Among Frank Bruni's "less savory qualities," his sexism ranks right up there.

Read more:

Bernie's alliance with the Tea Party

Say what??!!

Can't help it. I'm always a little skeptical of self-proclaimed saints, especially the political variety, e.g., Bernie Sanders. My skepticism has been warranted more than once so far during the 2016 Democratic primary. You know the primary, I mean. It's the one that Bernie qualified for when he suddenly decided it was in his best interest to join the Democratic Party: he needed its backing for his presidential run. Yet Bernie, the newest Democratic leader (?) on the block, continues to boast of his superior ethics while aggressively joining the Tea Party's efforts to label Hillary as corrupt.

Peter Daou's article in the Blue Nation Review reveals just who is corrupt, and it's not Hillary:

By Peter Daou

 

The corporate media are busy doing the Sanders campaign’s heavy lifting by trumpeting his desperate call for Hillary Clinton to release speech transcripts, an evidence-free insinuation of corruption that should be beneath Bernie.

And it is dismaying that Bernie’s positive message of 2015 has devolved into a relentless assault on Hillary’s integrity, using innuendo and guilt-by-association to tarnish her image and damage her for the general election should she be the Democratic nominee.

Meanwhile, aside from glancing mentions by Joy Reid and Jake Tapper, there has been complete media silence on Sierra Blanca, a shocking and distressing example of Bernie acting in direct contradiction to the values he espouses.

CounterPunch:

Bernie Sanders made a cold political calculation in 1998 that affected the lives of hundreds of poor, powerless people half a country away. He did it because it would benefit his affluent, politically engaged constituency, and, in turn, benefit him.

Read More:

A black life matters at 106 years of age

Virginia McLaurin dancing with Michelle and Barack Obama Photo: White House

Well, it may have taken Virginia McLaurin 106 years, but the centenarian helped President and Michelle Obama celebrate Black History Month by turning her visit to the White House into a dance party. And as noted by Dominique Mosbergen Senior Writer, at The Huffington Post, "The Obamas could barely keep up with her." Here's the scoop:

Barack and Michelle Obama are no strangers to busting a move, but this week the presidential couple were completely outshone by the twinkle-toed magic of a spry centenarian.

On Sunday, the White House shared a delightful video of Virginia McLaurin’s meet-and-greet with the Obamas. McLaurin, 106, who’s long harbored a dream to visit 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, was invited to take part in Black History Month celebrations.

 Read More:

"Um, Bernie, this ain't beanbag"

via the Boston Globe.

I missed last Thursday's PBS debate between Sanders and Clinton, but Boston Globe columnist Scott Lehigh offers a good summary and interpretation of that event while giving Clinton the win.

Lehigh writes:

THURSDAY NIGHT’S PBS-fest wasn’t a night of political pyrotechnics, but a good solid exchange that showed the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates. I scored it a win for Hillary Clinton.

One of the most dramatic moments came in the last few minutes of the debate, when Clinton, who had wrapped herself in President Obama’s legacy, offered up several critical comments that Sanders had made of the Democratic incumbent.

She expected that kind of thing of Republicans, but not of Democrats, Clinton said.

“Madame Secretary, that is a low blow,” Sanders rejoined.

Um, Bernie, this ain’t beanbag.

Read more:

 

Bernie's perpetual temper tantrum

Image of Bernie Sanders courtesy of the Canadian Dimension.

Watching Bernie Sanders in his perpetual temper tantrum mode, white hair standing on end, waving his arms around, and shouting about starting a revolution, it's hard to imagine him in the Oval Office greeting heads of state from around the world. And yet Senator Sanders, who accomplished next to nothing during his many years in Congress, recently ditched his independent status to formally join the Democratic Party, obviously for personal gain - Bernie needed its backing for his run for the presidency. 

(Did I mention Bernie has zero knowledge of foreign affairs.)

The Blue Nation Review takes a look at Bernie's promised revolution in its article headlined "There is no Bernie revolution: turnout should worry Democrats," Peter Daou writes:


Read More: