Bernie Sanders Attacked For Calling On Candidates To Be Judged On The Merits Not Their Identity Groups

It seems increasingly common for me to find myself utterly confused by American politics. I have admittedly always liked Bernie Sanders and I liked his interview on Vermont Public Radio where addressed the upcoming presidential campaign. He said “We have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or their gender and not by their age. I mean, I think we have got to try to move us toward a nondiscriminatory society, which looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for.” If that would seem like an unassailable and uncontroversial statement, guess again.

Advocates of identity politics responded with outrage that Sanders would want candidates judged entirely by the merits and not their race, gender or sexual orientation. Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress was apoplectic on Twitter, “At a time where folks feel under attack because of who they are, saying race or gender or sexual orientation or identity doesn’t matter is not off, it’s simply wrong.”

The New York Post also quotes former Clinton aide Jess McIntosh chimed in, “This is usually an argument made by people who don’t enjoy outsized respect and credibility because of their race, gender, age and sexual orientation.” Then there is Stephen Colbert snarked, “Yes, like Dr. King, I have a dream—a dream where this diverse nation can come together and be led by an old white guy.”

So instead Colbert believes D.r King would want people to judge leaders on the basis for their skin? Indeed, Colbert would presumably mock Dr. King for saying something so facially absurd as “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

The Democrats are clearly all-in on identity politics despite the fact that it is viewed by many as inherently discriminatory and divisive.

It is a reminder that the best thing going for Trump in the 2020 election remains the Democratic establishment.

199 thoughts on “Bernie Sanders Attacked For Calling On Candidates To Be Judged On The Merits Not Their Identity Groups”

  1. Chuckles. Liberal politics in our time is a set of status games. It has been in some measure since 1950 or thereabouts, predominantly so since about 1990, and with scant exception in the last 15 years or so. You have a few wonks like Harold Pollack who care about policy for reasons that aren’t ignoble, but for the most part policy is just a way to feed your clientele and insult and abuse the deplorables in various ways. Street-level Democrats with few exceptions are entirely on board with this or play the dupe and dope for people less obtuse. The question the United States faces (and other occidental countries face) is how to maintain a constitutional system when half the political spectrum is a playpen of the malignant. Men who developed their understanding of their world at a time when people commonly subscribed to a defensible set of principles of justice (and Sanders is one, Alan Dershowitz is another) are on very uncertain ground as we speak. Some of the older generation (Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis) might critique this phenomenon, but they fail in winter as they failed in their prime.

  2. Bernie suggesting we all be treated equally as Americans? Not a chance he just wants us to be divided by income instead of race. Unity is not on the agenda for democrats nor independent democrat socialist.

  3. OT: I just got this on climate change and checked snopes, the left wing fact checker, to see what it said: Reading to the end is a must.


    The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

    Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

    Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

    I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922. As reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post — 88 years ago!
    The text in the above example is a genuine transcription of a 1922 newspaper article, an Associated Press account which appeared on page 2 of the Washington Post on 2 November of that year:

  4. FBI’s top lawyer believed Hillary Clinton should face charges, but was talked out of it
    For most of the past three years, the FBI has tried to portray its top leadership as united behind ex-Director James Comey’s decision not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for transmitting classified information over her insecure, private email server.

    Although in the end that may have been the case, we now are learning that Comey’s top lawyer, then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, initially believed Clinton deserved to face criminal charges, but was talked out of it “pretty late in the process.”

    The revelation is contained in testimony Baker gave to House investigators last year. His testimony has not been publicly released, but I was permitted to review a transcript.

    During questioning by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), Baker was unequivocal about his early view that Clinton should face criminal charges.

    “I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations of law — various laws, with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?” Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, asked Baker.

    Baker paused to gain his lawyer’s permission to respond, and then answered, “Yes.”

    He later explained why he came to that conclusion, and how his mind was changed:

    “So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,” he said. “And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — she had the intent necessary to violate (the law).”

    Asked when he was persuaded to change his mind, Baker said: “Pretty late in the process, because we were arguing about it, I think, up until the end.”

    Baker made clear that he did not like the activity Clinton had engaged in: “My original belief after — well, after having conducted the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials — I thought that it was alarming, appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn’t be charged.”

    His boss, Comey, announced on July 5, 2016, that he would not recommend criminal charges. He did so without consulting the Department of Justice, a decision the department’s inspector general (IG) later concluded was misguided and likely usurped the power of the attorney general to make prosecutorial decisions. Comey has said, in retrospect, he accepts that finding but took the actions he did because he thought “they were in the country’s best interest.”

    Baker acknowledged that during the weeks leading up to the announcement, Comey “would throw things out like that to get people to start talking and thinking about it and test his conclusions.”

    Baker said that if he had been more convinced there was evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law, “I would have argued that vociferously with him [Comey] and maybe changed his view.”

    He portrayed his former boss as someone who was open to changing his mind once he heard from his senior staff, even after drafting his announcement statement. “I think he would have been receptive to changing his view even after he wrote that thing,” Baker said.

    Baker’s account also shed light on revelations I first reported more than a year ago that the original draft of Comey’s announcement concluded Clinton had been “grossly negligent” in handling her classified emails. That is the term in espionage statutes for criminality, but the language later was softened.

    Republicans have seized on the change as evidence that Comey and the FBI treated Clinton with favoritism. The IG, while criticizing Comey’s actions, concluded, however, there was no political bias involved in the decision.

    What Baker’s still-secret testimony makes clear is that, incredibly, we still don’t know the full story on how the Clinton email investigation ended and if anyone else disagreed with the outcome — even after congressional hearings and an inspector general’s review.

    If there is still the stomach to resolve the lingering questions, then there are two likely candidates to take the lead: the new attorney general, William Barr, and the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

    John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video.

  5. “We have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or their gender and not by their age.“

    Bernie forgot to mention hats….DONT club people to death until you see the whites of their HATS 👀

    Verify you have been bullied by their hat first…..then assault them


    Woman arrested for assaulting man wearing MAGA hat on Cape Cod

    FALMOUTH, Mass. – A woman on Cape Cod is facing charges for assaulting a man wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat.

    Rosiane Santos, 41, of Falmouth was charged with disorderly conduct and assault and battery.

    Santos told police she was upset the man was wearing the hat in a Mexican restaurant.

    The man wearing the hat, 23-year-old Bryton Turner of Mashpee, was so annoyed with the woman’s antics that he pulled out his phone and started recording her.

    The incident occurred last Friday at the “Casa Vallarta” Mexican restaurant in Falmouth.

    Turner says he was minding his own business, when Santos started yelling at him because of his hat, which bears the theme that President Donald Trump campaigned on.

    The woman is seen walking behind him and hitting his hat off his head.

    When asked if Turner did anything to provoke Santos, bartender Geo Macarao said, “No, no he just walked in and ordered his food.”

    When police showed up to the restaurant, the woman told them the man shouldn’t be allowed to eat in a Mexican restaurant. President Donald Trump is aiming to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

    As Falmouth police officers were escorting Santos out of the restaurant, Macarao said she took another swipe at Turner.

    “I couldn’t imagine somebody just coming up and hitting them when there’s cops right here,” Macarao said.

    “She just tried to grab my hat in front of four officers, not smart,” Turner said.

    Santos, a Brazilian immigrant, said while she regrets her actions, she claims she was provoked.

    “I had a little bit to drink maybe that’s the reason that I couldn’t walk away but being discriminated for so many times in my life, I just had to stand up for myself,” she said. “He’s not a victim. I am the victim. I have been bullied, OK?”


  6. Alan, 12 of those 19 states rank in the Bottom 20 in terms of population. 5 actually rank in the Bottom 10. Only 4 of those states rank in the Top 20.

    In other words, most of those states in deep red are empty states with few major cities.

    1. In other words, Alan, those states are fly over states, and might as well write them off when running for national elected office. Then when you lose that election, write a book, go on global tour, act like a victim and be as pathetic as possible given that would be natural for someone having sheet for brains when it comes for getting Americans to vote for you while casting aspersions on them

      “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
      ― George Orwell, Animal Farm

      1. Estovir, since you’re so well-informed, how many of those states did Trump visit during Campaign 2016?

        Did Trump really visit The Dakota’s? Kansas? Wyoming? Mississippi? Show me the dates he toured those states.

        1. What Peter does is steal from the data mining of left wing sites. Whether the information is true or not one doesn’t really know.

          Anyone that understands data mining knows that one can always work backwards to find something to complain about. That relieves them of the heartbreak of having to cheer for all the good Trump has done.

          Think of comments like this one of Peter’s as a pacifier.

          1. I believe that Peter insisted on seeing the dates that Trump visited those 45 states.
            I’ll give you 10-to-1 that Estovir isn’t going to spend hours googling every campaign trip taken to provide the dates on which each state was visited.
            As vital as that information is.😉☺

            1. Enigma’s track record of being correct or honest in my opinion is horrid. I’ve actually tracked down some of Enigma’s claims and the sources only to find Enigma was innaccurate. Did that stop him from essentially saying the same thing over and over again? No. It seems to be in Enigma’s nature to say what he feels, not what he can prove.

          2. “What Peter does is steal from the data mining of left wing sites”

            You give PH far more credit than deserved.
            PH is all about hit and run: comes on these forums, like Fishbreath, L4B, Enigma, lobs bombs then flees, never engaging in dialogue….aka paid troll

            its always the same “right wing media” trope, all the way they reference only their 3 left wing media sources

            Darren should block them and recruit new victims! 💀

    2. Peter my question was that I was slightly surprised to find NY more Democratic than California. I thought they ranked just about the same in recent years.

      It will be fun to watch if NY State turns redder over and after the next 6 years. I believe Manhattan real estate in NYC is getting soft and have felt so for awhile. That will mean part of Brooklyn will become soft as well. The amount of building in lower Manhattan is tremendous but with taxes rising and livability standards falling one questions whether they need to live there or not. Taxes have to come from somewhere and I remember when NYC almost went bankrupt due to socialist policies and people fled from the city. Those state taxes have to be made up which means a problem for the rest of the state as well. (My viewpoint is skewed because I look at this from a very specific point of interest.)

    1. Nothing wrong with polling self-identification, though I don’t think it’s the most reliable metric.

      A great many states are demographically unbalanced and conjoin rather dissimilar components, New York and Illinois foremost among them. Upstate’s where New England fades into the Rustbelt. It’s provincial and historically Republican (though less so than it once was). A generation ago, you could tell the difference between someone who’d grown up Upstate and someone who’d grown up Downstate with a few spoken phrases. The state’s demographically dominated by Downstate. Large and sophisticated cities are dominated by Democrats. The best explanation I’ve seen of that was from David Brooks of all people. His observation 20 years ago was that Republicans tend to dominate loci “where the self is small”. The large cities collect expressive people, whose self is not small.

  7. Turley wrote, “Advocates of identity politics responded with outrage . . .”

    Turley went on to name names on the great identity-politics wrecking crew: Neera Tanden (Who?) Jess McIntosh (Never heard of him or her) and Stephen Colbert. (Well at least I’ve heard of that last guy. Did you know that Stephen Colbert is a White man originally from Charleston, South Carolina?) OMG! We’re under siege from people we’ve never heard of before–except for that last one, and he’s a Southern White Man. From where does Turley find these hidden subversives? Are they everywhere? Turley can’t walk Luna without bumping into a squadron of them? The poor schnook. Does anybody else besides Luna remember where Turley lives? I ask because, wherever it is, let’s not go there.

    1. Hmmm. You don’t know the President of the Center for American Progress? John P is going to be very disappointed.

  8. There is a very distinct split within the Democratic party. It’s been here for a while, the election is bringing it to the fore. Identitarians on one left, and economic leftists on the other. The traditional corrupt corporatists ie the DNC, Center for American Progress, etc side with the identitarians because it does nothing to threaten their riches or hold on power. A bought black woman is just as bought as an old white guy and the Democratic Party has plenty of corrupt people of all hues. Bernie Sanders scares the bejesus out of them.

    1. They’re not scared of Bernie, much less Occasional-Cortex. Just annoyed by them.

      See Neo-Neocon’s assessment of Andrew McCabe. What appears to motivate them is a species of cosmopolitanism. McCabe’s fixated on Russia because it’s a threat to the EU and the whole cosmopolitan multi-culti project. Same deal with Trump.

  9. I prefer the fake Bernie Sanders – Larry David – to the real one. We all know Larry’s pulling our leg.

    1. Mespo,…
      That is indeed a big bonus in the announcement that Bernie will run again; Larry David is likely to return as Bernie to SNL.
      I miss guys like Darrel Hammond and Will Ferrell and the late Phil Hartman, who were all actually very good impressionists.
      Larry David is in their league, and SNL could use someone of his caliber to improve their skits.

  10. If people speak in a goofy manner then I judge them as not fit for the Presidency, whether it is the Presidency of the U.S. or of Mar A Lago shopping mall. If I ask someone: Where is 33rd Street and 3rd Ave. located in NY? And they respond: Oh, turdy turd and a turd.
    Then I say they are unfit.

  11. Bernie supports Socialist Left Wing Dictator Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela.
    Like Fidel and Raul Castro, left wing Communist dictators who broke the Nation of Cuba, Left Wing politicians care only about power for themselves and amassing personal wealth….just like Bernie Sanders with a networth of over $2 Million

    None of the Venezuelans in the Reuters article depicts them as overweight or obese. They are starving to death, young and old….which is what Left Wing Politicians do to the people

    “Sanders and his wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders, own three homes, including a one-bedroom rowhouse in Washington, D.C., and a waterfront property on Lake Champlain they purchased for $575,000 in 2016.”

    1. “None of the Venezuelans in the Reuters article depicts them as overweight ”

      Vacation specials to Venezuela for a year. Leftists can learn what their ideology is all about and if they are fat they will return to the States nice and trim.

    2. Maduro is garbage but let the Venezuela kick him out. I would not lift a finger agin him so long as he’s pumpin oil

  12. Jonathan Turley completely misses the point that Bernie Sanders is being disingenuous when he says, “We have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or their gender and not by their age.” Sanders, the leftist who argues that “bread lines are a good thing,” has made a career out of identity/class politics. But now, he finds that the shoe is on the other foot and that he’s now a member of what the left has identified as a despised class: old white males. In other words, Sanders is just making a meaningless, self-serving statement that he thinks will help him with his presidential campaign.

    1. has made a career out of identity/class politics.

      He’s from Vermont. Rather limited scope for identity politics. He made his career in Burlington as a GooGoo, not a promoter of class struggle. (Though his oddball associations and interests were well-known).

        1. “Goo-goos are people who believe that political process determines political substance. (In the nineteenth century the original goo“goos”the term came from “good government””persuaded them­ selves that American democracy could be cleansed and redeemed only if civil service reform triumphed over political patronage. Today’s goo“goos believe much the same about campaign finance reform.) Goo-goos then and now are terribly earnest about politics, and their earnestness is never more in evidence than during political campaigns. They actually worry about things”voter apathy, say, or whether the media have given sufficient attention to the difference between Al Gore’s targeted tax cuts and George Bush’s across“the“board rate reductions”that normal people regard with glazed“eye indifference. They are also purveyors of a number of pious myths about American politics.”

          And there’s more, via the linked piece.

Comments are closed.