Though the Vermont senator is performing surprisingly well in some Democratic primary polls and has drawn huge crowds in New Hampshire and Iowa, Kraushaar views Sanders as little more than a dangerous distraction in Hillary Clinton's march to the party's nomination.
He is not a pure liberal, he is “further left than that,” a candidate who believes he can lead a political revolution, according to the NJ columnist.
Here’s the Sanders candidacy, from the Kraushaar
perspective:
“In the past, the notion of an unreconstructed socialist
winning widespread support -- even as a protest candidate -- would have been
fanciful within the Democratic Party. The closest recent parallel to Sanders is
Dennis Kucinich, who tallied less than 4 percent of the total primary vote in
2004. Ralph Nader's high-water mark was in 2000, when his 2.7 percent
third-party tally was nonetheless enough to spoil Al Gore's hopes for the
presidency.
“… Like the tea-party stirrings among Republicans in
2009, the Sanders boomlet is a sign that liberal activists are getting
restless, and looking for a fight.
“… The real threat that Sanders poses to Clinton
(is) not as a candidate, but as a sign that the Democrats' version of the tea
party is ascendant at the worst possible time. By nonideological standards,
Sanders is a weak challenger -- he's got an unhealthy mix of Donald Trump's ego
and Michele Bachmann's bombast. He's won statewide office in Vermont, the most
liberal state in the country, with a population smaller than Bachmann's old
congressional district.”

No comments:
Post a Comment