Over the past 13 months in the State of New York (see the interactive chart below), Bernie Sanders has gone from being down 46.1% to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary to being down only 10.4% — and the establishment Democratic Party political machine is getting pissed!
That is quite a remarkable feat for a relatively unknown Independent Senator from the small State of Vermont — especially when one considers that he's been running against a world-known former two-term First Lady, a two-term New York Senator, and one-term Secretary of State — and a woman who has had the full might and backing of the most powerful political machine in the history of the world, including the full support of the most politically biased self-serving corporate media that ever was (who is only second to Pravda).
Last night as Wisconsin was voting, CNN reported: "The Clinton campaign has been watching these Wisconsin results come in, and the delegate race of course is tight there, but the reality is they're running out of patience. So they're going to begin deploying a new strategy, it’s going to be called Disqualify him, defeat him and then they can unify the party later. [Count me out. You can't insult and lie about my candidate, treat him like garbage, and then insult me, and then later ask for my vote. Ain't no way!]
So now, because yesterday Bernie Sanders just won the State of Wisconsin by a healthy double-digit margin over Hillary Clinton (see the exit polls from the Wisconsin election here), and because the next Democratic primary debate between Sanders and Clinton is scheduled 9 days later in Brooklyn New York on April 14th, and because the New York Democratic primary takes place 5 days later on April 19th, a New York City newspaper (whose owner, Mortimer B. Zuckerman, supports Hillary Clinton) just came out today with an horrendous cover that wrongfully depicts Senator Bernie Sanders' stand on gun control.
The New York Rumble begins — and the New York Daily News' propaganda machine is now in full gear...
Assuming that the audio and transcript is not edited from the New York Daily News (from an April 1, 2016 interview by the Editorial Board of Bernie Sanders in the offices of the newspaper in downtown Manhattan), the cover grossly exaggerates Bernie Sanders' position on gun control — that Hillary Clinton is also now using on the campaign stump (Related text below):
Daily News: Do you think that the discussion and debate about what defines a legal product, what should be a legal product, hence AR-15s, these automatic military-style weapons...which is the grounds of this suit at the moment is that this should have never been in the hands of the public.
Sanders: Well, you're looking at a guy...let's talk about guns for one second. Let’s set the record straight because of… unnamed candidates who have misrepresented my views. You're looking at a guy who has a D, what was it, D minus voting record from the NRA? Not exactly a lobbyist for the NRA, not exactly supporting them. But it's interesting that you raised that question. If you'll remember this, if you were in Vermont in 1988 [gestures to Vermonter in the room], three people were running for the United States Congress. We have one seat, Vermont. Two of them supported assault weapons. One candidate, Bernie Sanders, said, in 1988, "No, I do not support the sale and distribution of assault weapons in this country." I lost that election by three points. Came in second. And that may have been the reason, that I was opposed by all of the gun people, okay? So to answer your question, I do not believe, I didn't believe then and I don't believe now that those guns should be sold in America. They're designed for killing people.
Daily News: So do you think then, with that in mind, that the merits of the current case are baseless?
Sanders: It's not baseless. I wouldn't use that word. But it's a backdoor way. If you're questioning me, will I vote to ban assault weapons in the United States, yeah, I will.
A post at Wall Street on Parade on April 6, 2016 wraps it up very well: "Bernie Sanders won Wisconsin on honesty and inspiration, but got shamed on the cover of the New York Daily News."
And there was also this today...
MSNBC had on the air Hillary Clinton supporter Rep. Elizabeth Esty to comment on Bernie Sanders' remarks to the New York Daily News about suing gun manufacturers. As usual, MSNBC (just like CNN) didn't have anyone from the Sanders camp to debate the Clinton supporter. Sanders doesn't believe we should sue gun makers for making and selling legal products (if there was no wrong-doing or illegal activity by the gun maker); but Rep. Esty made the contrast to "we should be able to sue them, just like with the auto industry, to make safer products." So let's be clear: Rep. Esty and others are saying that, if someone legally buys a perfectly functioning gun (say at Walmart), and then that person uses that gun to kill an innocent child at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the parents of that child should be allowed to sue the gun manufacture for making and selling an "unsafe" gun? And if so, if someone legally buys a car (or a knife, or a baseball bat, or rat poison, or plastic bags, or rope or whatever) and kills someone, the manufacturer (of whatever product) should be able to also be sued? Or does this just apply to gun makers, and if so, why? Some gun opponents are saying this is an apples and oranges comparison...but why?
But that wasn't the only FAKE controversy from the New York Daily News interview. Bernie Sanders was also criticized in the corporate media for not knowing exactly how he'd break up the big banks. But a post at New York Times (April 6, 2016) writes: "Bernie Sanders probably knows more about breaking up banks than his critics give him credit for."
And I would add: Anyone with no more than a high school education can comprehend the basic premise that, if a small number of banks who make bad decisions (or engage in illegal fraud) are so big that they have the power to take down an entire economy (like they did in 2007/08), that they should be broken up — because they are "too big to fail". As to HOW to accomplish something of that magnitude would require specialized knowledge to make it work within our current legal system. When a president is elected, he has many advisors who are knowledgeable on specific areas of expertise to guide them through various legislative processes, who then either signs a bill that is passed by a majority in Congress, or the president issues an executive order if it is deemed constitutional. So to call Bernie Sanders' lack of understanding on this issue in the article at the Daily News really amounts to nothing more that sensational media tripe. No one person created the banking system that we now have, and no one person can reform it (let alone, have a full understanding of the intricacies involved). And the Dodd-Frank bill isn't an "end all" solution either, as it is limited in scope, and also requires an act of Congress — something President Sanders can't do on his own, because he wouldn't be a Socialist dictator. (At Bill Moyers.Com on April 4, 2016: Why Bernie’s Right About Glass-Steagall)
Following the New York Daily News interview and all the FAKE controversy that was generated, Bernie Sanders campaign released a statement telling us EXACTLY how he'd break up the big banks.
And this morning on MSNBC on their show Morning Joe, they gave Hillary Clinton a lot of time to launch further attacks against Bernie.
But today in The Guardian, they had something nice ;) —
"Bernie's a lingering headache for the Democratic establishment. Sanders is bringing out thousands of energized voters to his rallies, and he’s now won seven of the last eight contests. He’s also expected to win Wyoming this Saturday. All these victories make it hard for the establishment to call for Sanders to get out of the race, though they desperately want Clinton to be able to make a turn to the general election as soon as possible. The next big primary battle is in New York on 19 April – a state that both Democratic candidates can claim as home turf: Sanders was born there before moving up north, and Clinton represented the state in the Senate. For her part, Clinton spent Tuesday in New York, where she held a fundraiser in the evening. Maybe a shakedown of Wall Street bankers is how you win the hearts and minds of New York’s establishment class?" (And here's another post at The Guardian, this one about The Panama Papers, where Bernie gets his due.)
[* EDITOR'S NOTE: It should be noted that the entire time I was writing this post, Bernie was getting hammered non-stop, and with Clinton sound bites attacking him running continuously. NO EQUAL TIME HERE! The corporate media, almost all based in New York City in New York, for the most part, are all really going after Bernie BIG TIME now — even in many of their online articles — but if you read the reader's comments, most take Bernie's side. So to all of Bernie's supporters, fasten your seat belts, because it looks like it's going to be a very rough ride — so hold on tight!]
My other related posts about New York:
- Bernie Sanders's New York State of Mind
- Hillary Clinton comes unraveled in New York
- Hillary Clinton's New York Campaign Scandal
Other Odd and End Tid-Bit Notes:
The New York Daily News (November 10, 2007) Hillary Hits a Pothole (Editorial by Mortimer B. Zuckerman, owner of the New York Daily News)
New York Times (January 8, 1996) Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.
CBS News (March 25, 2008) Hillary Clinton Under Sniper Fire In Bosnia
A poll of Democratic primary voters by Bloomberg politics found that Sanders leads Clinton on trustworthiness by a massive 64% to 25%.
BBC: With polls repeatedly suggesting that both Clinton and Trump are viewed unfavorably by a majority of Americans, with historically unprecedented negative ratings, America is heading towards a lesser of two evils style presidential election.
New York Times: Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have earned more than $125 million in paid speech income since leaving the White House in 2001.
Bernie and Jane Sanders, with his congressional salary and their combined Social Security benefits, made $205k in 2014 according to their tax return (Bernie's plan to raise the cap for Social Security taxes would mean raising his own taxes.)