Bernie Sanders Reminds Many Of Robert Kennedy And Eugene McCarthy In 1968

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont announced his candidacy yesterday in Burlington, Vermont, in a more formal way than his original announcement several weeks ago.

It was an exciting event, with about 5,000 people showing up in the city that Sanders once governed as Mayor in the 1980s.

Sanders was inspiring in his rhetoric, and reminded many of the candidacies of Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy in 1968, tragically ending in the assassination of RFK in June, 1968.

RFK and McCarthy gave people hope in so many ways, just as Sanders does that today, in a much more complex time, when we have billionaires dictating much of the agenda; when we are engaged in foreign turmoil in many ways worse than even the Vietnam War, as the threat to the homeland is real; and when there is cynicism similar to that in 1968.

Bernie Sanders is highly unlikely to have any real opportunity to be the Democratic nominee for President in 2016, but he can push Hillary Clinton to the left in ways that will benefit her and the nation, and help to lead to Democratic control of the Presidency and the US Senate, and gains in the House of Representatives.

Bernie Sanders can be the conscience of the nation, appealing to our better side and instincts, something sorely needed in a time of many people no longer motivated to get involved in politics. It is likely that he will have many people, who never had an interest in government, suddenly be galvanized into action, which is all to the good for the nation and its future!

44 comments on “Bernie Sanders Reminds Many Of Robert Kennedy And Eugene McCarthy In 1968

  1. Max May 27, 2015 10:37 am

    In an interview with financial journalist John Harwood on Tuesday, Sanders detailed his grievances with an overabundance of antiperspirants and footwear. “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don’t think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.”
    Nobody parodies the far Left better than far-leftists themselves.

  2. Ronald May 27, 2015 11:05 am

    So, Max, you have fault with that comment of Sanders? The fact that he recognizes the kinds of stress that Americans live under, and all that the corporations want to do is offer 23 varieties of spray deodorants or 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry, makes you laugh?

    This says legions about you and your set of values, as after all, since you are doing fine, to hell with those who are hungry, etc.

    You should be ashamed of yourself, considering the truly outrageous comments made by multiple GOP candidates on every subject imaginable!

  3. Princess Leia May 27, 2015 12:17 pm

    That’s why I think Max is our right-winger pal Juan. 😉

  4. Ronald May 27, 2015 12:20 pm

    I tend to agree, Princess Leia,but I will continue to stay on the sidelines until it is absolutely clear that what you say is true, and if I reach that conclusion, with the dialogue becoming disruptive, I will solve the problem, but meanwhile just observing! 🙂

  5. Rustbelt Democrat May 27, 2015 12:56 pm

    So what candidate do you like Max? Someone from some third party, who has no chance at winning a national election?

  6. Max May 27, 2015 1:29 pm

    Rustbelt: Currently no one in the field peaks my interest.

  7. Max May 27, 2015 1:55 pm

    Here me out. Sanders seems to believe, we could end childhood hunger if only consumers had fewer choices in the free market, there were fewer entrepreneurs offering a wide variety of products, and fewer workers manufacturing goods that people wanted. He implies, correct me if I am wrong, that every business owner’s success robs starving babies of vital nutrition. In Sanders’s world, childhood hunger is the fault of selfish consumers, self-serving entrepreneurs, and rapacious retailers who engage in voluntary transactions in a free-market economy. Really? Is he serious? Unfortunately he is. Let’s have a look at how his recipe of less capitalist consumption, fewer private businesses, stifling of entrepreneurship, and more government control over goods and services would result in happier citizens and fuller stomachs. We need to go no further than to cross the Caribbean. In Venezuela, the shelves are unburdened by “too many” deodorants and shoes and too much soap, milk, or coffee. Food distribution is under military control and the currency of the socialist paradise just collapsed on the black market by 30 percent. There the government imposed price controls in the name of redistributing basic goods to the poor and seized a toilet-paper factory to cure the inevitable shortages. The lines are long, the shelves are empty, the daily battle for subsistence is brutal and people, including babies really do starve. How does Sander think he is going to convince me an independent right down the middle voter? By claiming Venezuela isn’t real socialism and that real socialism has never really been tried? Really? Just saying.

  8. Ronald May 27, 2015 2:04 pm

    Max, comparing Venezuela to the US is comparing apples to oranges, sorry to say.

    Venezuela is not really “socialism”, but communism but called “socialism”, which is not what I nor Bernie Sanders wants.

    We want what the Socialist Party of America brought about in the 20th century–minimum wages, maximum hours, labor union recognition, social security, medicare, medicaid, public works programs, consumer protection, environmental protection, higher taxation on the corporations than now (even under Eisenhower), and numerous other programs under Democratic and Republican Presidents.

    These were promoted by Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas and others, and they did not believe in or support the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, etc.

    No one should go hungry in America for any reason, including veterans, children, single mothers, drug addicts, mentally ill people, as this is a HUMAN RIGHT, and if we do not care about that, we have no right to say we are “good” Christians, Jews, or any other religion, as this is BASIC! Nothing is more important!

  9. Max May 27, 2015 2:50 pm

    But that is not what Sanders said here. He was attacking entrepreneurs, our variety of products and the workers who happen to be employed by those businesses. Who is he, or anyone for that matter, to say what we, as a society needs? Who is he to say we have too much choice of products and services? On the contrary we should have more so the parents of those “hungry” children, (and I would love to look at the stats and what constitutes hunger in this country) have more jobs to choose from. Finally Venezuela is socialist, not communist yet. Remember under communism there is no private property like in socialism. In socialism private property is subordinated to the interest of the collective which is decided by the state. It is a hyper-regulated top down authoritarian regime. Communism goes full blown totalitarian. And yes , today the US is not Venezuela, but why go down that path were in the future we will be comparable?

  10. Max May 27, 2015 2:58 pm

    What I would like to know, and hopefully you can answer this, is that if socialism is so great, why doesn’t the Democrat Party simply come out and say we are socialist? Why don’t they say we are the equivalent of the European Social Democrats? I mean their base clearly is, there policies tend to shift us in that direction, so why just don’t they assume it? Why are they not proud to be social democrats “a la” European? Why do they get offended when anyone says Obama is a socialist or social democrat if you prefer?

  11. Ronald May 27, 2015 3:22 pm

    Max, the reason why the word Socialism is avoided, is precisely because the American people are ill educated, ignorant, clueless, and have been told by Wall Street and the corporations and the Republicans and conservatives and moderate Democrats, that the word is evil.

    It seems to me that Western Europe is not harmed by so called “socialist” programs, and we have many of them, and yet, the Democrats avoid it like a plague because of the propaganda and hysteria that is part of the American psyche due to corporate influence!

  12. Ronald May 27, 2015 3:23 pm

    Max, we will NEVER come close to Venezuela or Cuba, I assure you! And I would be totally opposed to that occurring!

  13. Max May 27, 2015 3:57 pm

    Oh I see. So in essence according to the Democrat Party, that is the real Social Democrat party in America, and according to intellectual progressives (or should I say socialists) like yourself, the American people are in general nothing but a bunch of ignorant fools. My my, wouldn’t America be a better place if we could just replace Americans for nice obedient Europeans socialists? Tell me Ronald, I am curious, what if the square footage of your home? 850 sq ft?

  14. Ronald May 27, 2015 4:38 pm

    HAHA, now, Max, don’t become sarcastic and insulting!

    I am NOT a Socialist, just recognize that their ideas have had a dramatic, and positive, effect on America in the past century.

    Ignorance is widespread, and encouraged by Fox News Channel and conservatives, and it promotes misunderstanding of the true nature of American Socialist ideas, of which we have adopted many.

    And what you call European Socialists are not obedient at all, but interestingly, societies such as Scandinavia are much happier people, and their standard of living is just fine, and often, in many ways, better than ours, whether you wish to accept that or not!

    I do not have a large home, and waited nearly 20 years of marriage to gain it, but I bet your home is very large and luxurious! LOL hahaha!

  15. Pragmatic Progressive May 27, 2015 4:51 pm

    I second that Princess Leia. Nice to have him back so we can have some daily laughs. 😉

  16. Max May 27, 2015 5:16 pm

    Leave Scandinavia to the Scandinavians. I am sure it’s a wonderful place to visit but I wouldn’t live there. The average square footage of all household dwellings in Finland is 855 sq. ft. and Sweden is 999 sq. ft. The European average for ALL household dwellings is 857 sq. ft. That’s 363 sq. ft. of living space per person. In the meantime, here in the USA the average for ALL households is 2171 sq. ft., that’s 845 sq. ft. of living space per person. But to be fair let’s see how the considered “poor” households do in America. The average poor household dwelling is 1400 sq. ft. , that’s 515 sq. ft. of living space per person. On average, the dwellings of poor Americans are about two-thirds the size of the aver-age U.S. dwelling. Nonetheless, at 1,400 square feet, the dwelling of the average poor American is still substantially larger than the average dwelling in every European nation. Poor American households tend to have somewhat more people on aver-age than do European households; nonetheless, at 515 square feet per person, the average poor American has more living space than the average citizen—not just the poor—in almost every European nation. So would you care to downsize to the average European dwelling space? And since I know progressive say the love facts, here are the sources, now please don’t blame me, the messenger: Kees Dol and Marietta Haffner, Housing Statistics of the European Union 2010, Netherlands Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, September 2010, p. 51,
    Table 2.1, at european_union_2010.pdf (September 7, 2011), and U.S. Department of Energy, 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, Consumption & Expenditures Tables, Summary Statistics, Table US1, Part 2, at (September 7, 2011).

  17. Ronald May 27, 2015 5:22 pm

    Well, Max, I am below that 2171 square foot average, but perfectly satisfied and appreciative that after nearly 20 years of commitment and hard work, that I have had this house for 22 years.

    But your numbers per person are incorrect, and makes me think you are NOT a math whiz! LOL hahaha!

  18. Ronald May 27, 2015 5:56 pm

    HAHA, I wonder with that .7 person, which part is in the house? LOL hahahaha

    So I gather that we might both be part of the great proletariat, LOL Just kidding!

  19. Rustbelt Democrat May 27, 2015 8:38 pm


    These are the parties listed in the article. I’m just curious if any of them represent your ideology.

    Libertarian Party
    Green Party of the United States
    Constitution Party

    America First Party
    Christian Liberty Party
    America’s Party
    Independent American Party

    American Populist Party
    Citizens Party
    Modern Whig Party
    Reform Party of the United States of America
    Veterans Party of America
    Unity Party of America

    Justice Party USA
    Working Families Party
    Socialist Party USA
    Communist Party USA
    Socialist Labor Party of America
    Party for Socialism and Liberation
    Peace and Freedom Party
    Socialist Equality Party
    Socialist Workers Party
    Freedom Socialist Party
    Socialist Action
    Socialist Alternative
    Workers World Party

    American Conservative Party
    Objectivist Party

    Ethnic nationalism:
    National Socialist Movement
    American Freedom Party

    Single issue/protest-oriented:
    Prohibition Party
    United States Marijuana Party
    United States Pirate Party

  20. Max May 28, 2015 10:27 am

    Rustbelt: None of them do. I am not a party person. And I am not a follower of politicians. I hardly trust any of them, except maybe those who were veterans, and not all of them. Plus one can never agree 100% with anyone nor should it be that way. But if you must know, I would consider myself a Federalist, I am a firm believer in Federalism which was one of the most important creation of the Philadelphia Convention.

  21. Ronald May 28, 2015 10:37 am

    Max, you may believe in Federalism, but the Federalists at the Constitutional Convention were supporters of a strong national government and broad interpretation of the Constitution, as promoted by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams as part of the first political party system.

    Just as there is misunderstanding of the term “Socialism” and “Socialist”, there is misunderstanding of “Federalism” and the “Federalists” of the 1780s and 1790s!

  22. Max May 28, 2015 11:39 am

    Just because I believe in Federalism doesn’t mean I adhere to what everything the Federalist Party stood for over 200 yrs. ago. That said I am also for a strong Federal government and I believe so was Hamilton but that doesn’t mean Hamilton and the Federalist back then were for an unlimited and unrestrained Federal government regulating every single aspect of our lives. And If I recall correctly it was Jefferson who was angry about the Judiciary assuming the power to check the Executive and Legislative powers. Jefferson in the end believed more in an unlimited Executive that the Federalist Marshall. Jefferson believed that the Executive had the power to interpret and make the call on whether its actions were constitutional or not. He fumed over Marbury v Madison.

  23. Pragmatic Progressive May 28, 2015 12:17 pm

    Max: Non-participation only aids the status quo. You want to see change, whether in your local government or your federal government, you have to vote.

  24. Rustbelt Democrat May 28, 2015 12:24 pm

    Other than specific issues, the most important factor in my decision of who to vote for when I vote for President is the Supreme Court.

  25. Southern Liberal May 28, 2015 12:25 pm

    A lot of the regulations you hate are for your safety, Max.

  26. Ronald May 28, 2015 1:16 pm

    I agree with the ladies on what they are saying, particularly on the issue of the Supreme Court being the most important issue when voting for President!

  27. Max May 28, 2015 1:39 pm

    Pragmatic: Maybe, but no one proposes the changes I would prefer. Both parties, the Democrats and Republicans within the beltway take us down the same disastrous path.

  28. Max May 28, 2015 2:16 pm

    Southern: Did I ever say I was against safety regulations? Not at all. But you have to admit we have an over-abundance of all types of regulations. And what is worse some impose penalties and even prison time without any of them having been passed by our representatives but by unelected permanent unaccountable bureaucracy. In other words the bureaucratic administrative state has risen as a 4th branch of government and has in most instances more powers that the constitutionally established branches.

  29. Southern Liberal May 28, 2015 4:04 pm

    It’s exactly as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are saying. Wall Street has too much power in our political system.

  30. Pragmatic Progressive May 28, 2015 4:09 pm

    What specific changes would you make?

  31. Southern Liberal May 28, 2015 4:20 pm

    You need to read the website http://www.government is to learn truth about the problem with our government.

  32. Princess Leia May 28, 2015 6:08 pm

    I second what Southern Liberal said. Don’t believe the falsehoods told on Fox News when they gleefully lambast “wasteful” social programs or “ridiculous” regulations.

  33. Rustbelt Democrat May 28, 2015 6:10 pm

    Not all of us are ladies. I’m a man poster.

  34. Ronald May 28, 2015 6:12 pm

    HAHA, sorry, Rustbelt Democrat! LOL

  35. Princess Leia May 28, 2015 7:55 pm

    It sounds to me like the Libertarian Party would be Max’s best match. They promote free markets, limited government. Typical “Tea Party” stuff he’s been spouting.

  36. Max May 29, 2015 10:59 am

    Government is neither good nor bad per se. What does happen is that sometimes government does good things, sometimes bad things and sometimes, I would say more than acceptable, it does useless things. The problem with some on the left is that any criticism of the bad and useless things government does is seen as an attack on government per se because they seem to believe that government can never do anything bad or useless. Thus the straw man argument that “you want dirty air, water, unfettered markets, no roads or infrastructure and so on and so on”. So when the issue is put in those terms, no discussion is possible. Thus I repeat, government per se is neither good nor evil, but what flesh and blood men do in government can be either good or evil, and since men tend to be imperfect, I believe it is best to limit the power of men who run government. Not that hard to understand. So you see, those who see no evil or anything bad at all with anything the government does, those who believe government is pure and good, are in my humble opinion the real fanatics with whom no discussion is ever possible.

  37. Princess Leia May 29, 2015 12:31 pm

    Max said: The straw man argument that “you want dirty air, water, unfettered markets, no roads or infrastructure and so on and so on”. So when the issue is put in those terms, no discussion is possible.

    Those are issues that are important to most Americans.

    The agenda of the anti-government coalition that Max/Juan is a part of is a radical one – they do not simply want to reform and improve government; they want to gut it. They fundamentally oppose the basic roles and functions of government in modern society. They believe the government’s power to tax, its ability to enact health, safety, and environmental regulations, and its attempts to redistribute income to provide more economic security for citizens of the US are all basically illegitimate activities. They fundamentally oppose the modern idea of government and the role it has come to play in advanced societies. They feel deeply uncomfortable with the expansion of government power and programs that took place during the New Deal and the Great Society and are nostalgic about earlier times when government played only a very minor role in society.

    The state-hating views of American conservatives like Max/Juan are out of step with other democracies.

    This anti-government movement is undemocratic.

  38. Southern Liberal May 29, 2015 12:36 pm

    Amen to that Leia!

  39. Rustbelt Democrat May 29, 2015 12:49 pm

    LOL! I think it’s funny how they complain about government, yet, when they need it, they love it. LOL!

  40. Ronald May 29, 2015 1:24 pm

    WOW! Princess Leia, I could not have said it better than you did here! 🙂

    And Rustbelt Democrat, you are so correct at the hypocrisy of the Right. Ted Cruz wanted no aid to New Jersey and Staten Island for Hurricane Sandy, but he wants it for the floods in Texas!

    I wish there was a way to say NO to Cruz, but of course, the citizens of Texas are more important than punishing the arrogant, nasty, uncaring, extremist Cruz and his even nuttier pastor father.

    We can have sympathy somewhat that Ted Cruz is as crazy and dangerous as he is, due to the upbringing by a dad who should have never been allowed to leave Cuba, as he is a hate mongering lunatic!

  41. Southern Liberal June 2, 2015 7:45 pm

    Rather interesting how Max/Juan only pops out of the woodwork whenever election campaigns start up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.