Quantcast

Univision Is First to Make “Bernie the Red” Charge

Mar10

berniefidelclipAn amazing thing happened in last night’s debate in Miami between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders: For the first time since the campaign began, Democratic voters got a glimpse of the kind of ferocious, meat grinder attacks Republicans would use to pulverize the superannuated socialist, should his party be so unfortunate as to choose him as its candidate.

Midway through the event, Univision’s Maria Elena Salinas said to Sanders, “In 1985, you praised the Sandinista government and you said that Daniel Ortega was an impressive guy. This is what you said about Fidel Castro, let’s listen.”

And then up came a video clip from August 1985 in which Sanders, then the mid-40s mayor of Burlington, Vermont, spoke to an interviewer from the Center for Media & Democracy about Cuba and Central America, Take it away, Bernie:

You may recall, way back in, what was it, 1961 they (the U.S. ) invaded Cuba. And everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world. All the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro. They forgot that he educated their kids, gave them health care, totally transformed the society.

fidel_castro_pnw1Patria O Muerta Whether or not you think Daniel Ortega was impressive, or that Fidel transformed Cuban society in a good way is not the point. It was the first time in the campaign that anyone used Sanders’s own words to paint him as a communist sympathizer.

Sanders and his Sandersistas keep exulting in national polls that show him running stronger against Donald Trump than Clinton. There’s a very good reason for that: Republicans have been bashing Hillary, over scandals real and imagined, since 1993. They have laid exactly not one fingertip on Bernie, first because they considered him irrelevant and, now, because they get Reagan-Mondale ’84 stars in their eyes when they consider the prospect of Sanders leading the Democratic national ticket.

The short bit of a tape wasn’t the whole story. No, when asked about it, Bernie doubled down on his Marxist analysis of U.S. imperialism, starting with the Monroe Doctrine, fercrissache, and running right through the old SDS playbook on the history of Latin America.

Throughout the history of our relationship with Latin America we’ve operated under the so-called Monroe Doctrine, and that said the United States had the right do anything that they wanted to do in Latin America. So I actually went to Nicaragua and I very shortly opposed the Reagan administration’s efforts to overthrow that government. And I strongly opposed earlier Henry Kissinger and the — to overthrow the government of Salvador Allende in Chile…

Look, let’s look at the facts here. Cuba is, of course, an authoritarian undemocratic country, and I hope very much as soon as possible it becomes a democratic country. But on the other hand…it would be wrong not to state that in Cuba they have made some good advances in health care. They are sending doctors all over the world. They have made some progress in education…

hillaryunivisionHillary Pounces Hillary took about two seconds to tear his face off over his comments, past and present:

And I just want to add one thing to the question you were asking Senator Sanders. I think in that same interview, he praised what he called the revolution of values in Cuba and talked about how people were working for the common good, not for themselves.

 I just couldn’t disagree more. You know, if the values are that you oppress people, you disappear people, you imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions, for expressing freedom of speech, that is not the kind of revolution of values that I ever want to see anywhere.

Look, we don’t necessarily disagree all that much with Bernie’s overall analysis. And some of our best past lives friends are godless, commie pinkos. Our point is that while these notions may be fine to fling around the Golden State, folks in Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and a handful of other battleground toss-up states may get a whole lot less comfortable with Chairman Bernie’s “revolution” when they maostart seeing some of the personal political history on which he bases it.

And Wednesday night’s debate offered just the tiniest taste of what would be unloaded on him if he were to become the Democratic nominee. He would be portrayed as a Bernie the Red, seeking to undermine all that is great about American capitalism while forcing us all to live in communes, smoke Cuban cigars and drive ’57 Chevys. And much worse.

Remember Bernie, a single spark can start a prairie fire.


subscribe to comments RSS

There are 7 comments for this post

  1. avatar kpminott says:

    Even worse, I can see the ghost of Richard Nixon, whispering evil advice into the ears of GOP spin meisters and inducing the taking down of Bernie as a “Communist Jew.”

  2. avatar cbarney says:

    right, just forget about guatemala (arbenz, iran-contra), chlle (allende), Honduras (twice and still happening) grenada, panama, venezuela, haiti (3 times), all since 1954. we don’t need to hear about these, although those of us who belong to the growing latino (voting) population of the u.s. might have some tough memories.

    bernie the red? i dunno, the old red scare gag might not play so well with the rest of us any more either.

  3. avatar marcelo says:

    Let me follow the logic here, my old CalBuzz friends:

    The buried lead: “… we don’t necessarily disagree all that much with Bernie’s overall analysis. And some of our best (strikethrough: past lives) friends are godless, commie pinkos. Our point is that while these notions may be fine to fling around the Golden State, folks in Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and a handful of other battleground toss-up states may get a whole lot less comfortable with Chairman Bernie’s ‘revolution’ when they start seeing some of the personal political history on which he bases it.”

    Translation: We kinda agree with what Bernie said more than 30 years ago, and we used to say it ourselves. And some of our best friends think that the embargo against Cuba helped prop up a dictatorship and push it into the “red” part of the world map we saw in elementary school classrooms 50 (60?) years ago. And, yes, Bernie was right about Ortega, the Sandinistas and the Contras. Not to mention Pinochet, Papa Doc and Videla.

    The problem, according to this post, is that Sanders believed and said exactly what we, and our best friends, used to say, which means Sanders CANNOT win the presidency.

    My question, then, doesn’t this very logic bring into question CalBuzz’s authority to even write about such matters?

    I am personally very ready to support Hillary Clinton if and when (I am even ready to use strikethrough font on the “if and” part of this statement) she is the nominee. But isn’t the fact that Sanders has brought into the national conversation and legitimized the very things the writer and his/her “best friends” have believed (and most certainly still do) in and of themselves an argument FOR his candidacy?

    I’m personally not so bothered with the “Bernie the Red” hed. I’m actually very happy that America (and that includes a yuuuge swath far, far beyond my pinko, straight marriage-hating, illegal-loving, libtard California) may now see “Red” as representing something other than a narrow-minded Republican stronghold.

    • avatar pjhackenflack says:

      You are still confused marcelo. Bernie can’t win the presidency, whether you agree with his analysis of US imperialism or not. Hillary Clinton can win, whether you agree with her muscular liberalism or not. The Supreme Court lies in the balance. Case closed.

  4. avatar cbarney says:

    i believe this is what is called “received wisdom,” pj, in this case thundered from olympus.

    mamma don’t allow no bernie-mongering here….

    still, many of us have been waiting for a long time to hear bernie’s message stated so clearly. anyway, where is it written that hillary is such sure thing, especially after the lousy campaign she is running.

    i suggest we wait and see what happens at the gop convention in july and then re-evaluate.

    in the meantime, pj, come down offa that mountain and mingle.

  5. avatar marcelo says:

    Hey Mr. pjhackenflack: You say I am “still confused”. Confusion may indeed be my permanent state, but why do you say “still” confused. Do you know me and my mental health? And who said anything about “imperialism”?

    I know the founders of this site, have worked with them in the past, and admire them greatly. I was just poking fun at the fact that the writer basically admitted to agreeing with Sanders’ positions, but suggested that those positions somehow disqualify him.

    I believe Clinton WILL be the nominee, and I WILL certainly vote for her if it is so. But I am quite pleased there is someone seeking the Democratic Party nomination for president who quite clearly articulates much of what I believe in, as well as what the writer and his/her “godless, commie pinko” best friends believe.

    BTW: I am not in any way offended by the “godless, commie pinko” tag. I know it was meant in jest and I accept that. But being called “still confused”? That just further addles my mind.

Please, feel free to post your own comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.