Bret Calvert

An open letter to a Facebook friend that I don’t really know in real life.

Of course I should start by saying that I’ve enjoyed your political posts and stances for as long as I can remember being your Facebook friend. In fact, I think that’s why whatever mutual friend it was connected us in the first place. I have reposted your words several times and, on more than one occasion, thought to myself, “Wow. This guy put what I was thinking into words perfectly.” So, I think it’s fair to say that on a wide range of political issues, we are in total agreement.

Even more, your eloquence, passion, and intelligence shine in your posts. It is obvious how much time you have spent absorbing and processing the available information and coming to your own logical conclusions. It’s impressive. Sincerely.

And then yesterday, I was more than a bit surprised to see your caustic take on Sanders. I’ve been working hard on a new show for the last few months, so I haven’t digested posts in any regular fashion, so I must have missed several things you put up criticizing Bernie and your reasons why. The first I saw of your dislike for him was an article with a picture of those protesting outside of CNN last Sunday, to which you added the words “Idiot Children.” It just didn’t sound like you…at least not when referencing something other than the GOP…and even then very, very rarely.

Shortly after, I say you posted an article about Bernie’s interview with Daily News implying that it showed he was a hapless old coot that knew nothing (not to mention smugly dismissing a follow-up article someone posted with evidence he wasn’t as ill-informed as you thought and that the Daily News had actually made some mistakes.) Reviewing more of your page, I’ve seen you call him “grotesque” and a “petulant, reactive manbaby” and “morally bankrupt.”

When I pressed you on why you would dismiss Bernie out-of-hand and use such caustic language while doing so, you urged me to go back and read some of your old posts to see why you have such a vitriolic hatred for the guy. So…I did…and honestly, I can’t say I am any closer to understanding.

Let’s go through a couple:

Let’s start with the “Idiot Children” who were protesting in front of CNN about their bias for Hillary. First, even though a lot of your commenters replied with nothing more than “get a job” let’s be clear the protest was on a Sunday. I know because I was there. Not a part of the protest, but I saw it and it was totally a Sunday. In your critique of these “idiots” you say that their complaint is not provable, therefore they shouldn’t protest. I have soon many problems with this. Mostly, citizens of this country should protest whatever the hell drives them to protest. Free speech and all that. They should be able to make their voices heard without someone who disagrees with them resorting to name-calling. The funniest part is how you called them “children” while also calling them names…which is just about a childish as you can get. But beside all of that, their complain is very, very “provable.” The numbers in their coverage of each candidate are available for you to peruse at your leisure and the disproportionate coverage given to Clinton is irksome if not downright troubling. If you ever actually watch CNN you’ll notice a palpable bias in their tone, as well. It isn’t deniable. Those people who took the time to express themselves on that Sunday have a point. A clear, demonstrable one…wether you like it or not. But, even if they didn’t…who the hell are you to insult so many people for exercising their rights…regardless of if you agree with them. I’m used to you eloquently expressing your opposition to things. This sophomoric BS surprises me.

You recently posted an article with the headline “SANDERS: CLINTON SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO VICTIMS OF IRAQ WAR.” You added that it was “ghoulish.” However, when you read the article, he was responding to a loaded question about him apologizing to Sandy Hook families because he doesn’t think gun manufacturers should be held liable in shooting deaths. We can argue about the level of tastelessness of his response, but you cannot deny the point he was trying to make. Making the maker of a gun responsible for how their customers use it is ridiculous. We don’t sue Ford when someone drives drunk. The right to own guns exist. It’s the law of the land and these companies are making and selling a legal product. The responsibility for the current state of gun violence belongs at the feet of the NRA and the spineless politicians who can’t stand up to them. Yes, the manufacturers are a big part of the NRA…but drawing the direct line that a company is responsible when someone misuses their product is foolish. On the other hand, Hillary did have a part in making the Iraq war happen. Yes, it would be ridiculous for her to apologize…which is why Bernie said it…just as ridiculous as him apologizing for Sandy Hook. You can argue about how Bush mislead people with made-up evidence…but she still bought it and cast her vote. He shouldn’t have said it…but as with a lot of your posts, the scary headline overshadows the truth of what’s inside…which is dramatically less terrible than you seem to believe. More examples below.

Another article blames Sanders for postponing Obama getting into the race and supporting Hillary…in fact, you have several saying that Bernie should bow out for various reasons, mostly related to the notion that the longer he stays in the race, the harder it will be for Hillary to win. You post that the math doesn’t work out and he should just bow out and throw all of his political weight behind Hillary. This is probably the notion that makes me saddest of all…and we’re hearing it a lot. Those of us who support Bernie are being told it is hopeless and that, if we were smart, we’d give up on our candidate and get behind Hillary. In my humble opinion, this is purely un-American. To actually try to silence a candidate who is inspiring MILLIONS to get involved in the process, who has people believing that our government can actually be about them and not just the wealthy, who has young people actually excited to vote…well, it just makes me sick. That’s the kind of crap Trump would do. Bernie can run for as long as he wants…as long as droves of citizens are turning up to see him and are being inspired by his message…hell, as long as there is one citizen willing to sit and listen to what he has to say, he should stay in the race. It is his right. And dammit, he just might pull it off.

As far as him being responsible for Obama delaying his campaigning for Hillary…good. In the meantime, he’s been in DC being the opposite of a lame duck president and still getting things done. Even the article you posted on the subject says that Obama and his aides say that the delay “caused” by Sanders is an “unplanned benefit.”

Not to mention, if she is the nominee, Hillary is going to have her problems in the general regardless of what Bernie does. Big problems. I am firmly of the mindset that he has a better chance of winning against the Republican nominee than she does. He’s the only candidate with a positive favorability rating…on either side! Think about that for a second. There is so much distrust (in some cases well-placed, I’ll get to that later) and quite a bit of outright hate for Hillary out there, I think she’ll have a hard time hanging on when the GOP machine gears up and goes after her. They’ll have some ammo against Bernie, for sure…but he has been unapologetic and resolute, where she has been all over the map trying to cover her butt when pressed.

Another posts of yours shows a quote from Bernie which is admittedly a bit loopy and too revolutionary…but here’s the problem. It’s posted with a current picture of Bernie…even though the quote is 47 years old. I find it very disingenuous to take a sentence from a still developing political mind and present it as if it were said by a fully-formed political mind 5 decades later. That’s a parlor trick. That’s the kind of crap I have seen you rail against the GOP for. I read your comments where you tried to justify it by saying he hasn’t taken it back in the years since. I’m sorry, but I don’t think evolving means publicly listing everything you may have been misguided on. And your clear propaganda tactic is beneath you. You are better than that. I know…I’ve seen it.

Another post of yours about how Sanders’ campaign has taken a “Dark Turn” accompanied with an eerie silhouetted shot of Bernie. Open up the article and it accuses him of “attacking” Hillary by saying she accepted money from the oil and gas lobby, and super PACs, and that she voted for the Iraq war, and that she flip-flopped on trade….well, she actually did all of those things. I do not understand how pointing out things that ACTUALLY HAPPENED constitutes an attack. That’s called telling the truth. This whole line of thinking smells like Palin to me. Accusing someone of “attacking” for telling the truth. Now, you may argue that the “attack” is insinuating that she must be influenced by all of that money. Well, how could she not be? We know enough about the financial sector to know that they won’t dump millions of dollars into a campaign unless it will get them something. Trump knew it when he donated to Hillary and got her to come to his wedding even though she admits she hardly knew him. Money is influence in DC. Period. Saying so isn’t an attack…it’s just how it is. Bernie is funded by the people. He is beholden to no one but us. Hillary cannot say the same thing and pointing that out isn’t a “dark turn”…it’s telling the truth. He hasn’t gone after the e-mail nonsense, or the ridiculous Benghazi argument or mentioned FBI interviews. He’s not stooping to creating mud to sling out of thin air…he’s actually telling the truth. I am baffled that your seasoned political mid views that as an “attack”

It goes on and on…you criticize him for not saying he will whole-heartedly endorse Hillary unless she changes some of her policies. Even though I call that sticking to your guns and believing in your message. Forcing someone to give a full-throated endorsement of someone they happen to disagree with is sheepish and stupid. Besides, he has already said she will make a far better president than any GOP candidate. Bashing him for wanting her to rethink some policy is ridiculous. I don’t think any citizen should blindly support anyone. He made it clear that he prefers her to the other candidates…if you’re thinking he’s supposed to give her a blanket endorsement because of which side of the aisle they sit on…again, that’s GOP type of talk.

You bash him for not falling into lock-step with Obama about Garland for SCOTUS. I happen to think Garland is too conservative, too. I agree with you that there should be confirmation hearings as soon as possible…and Sanders has even said that he would vote to confirm him. But to say that he should not be allowed to raise concerns because he was selected by our beloved Democratic president is, again, not how things are supposed to work in America. If he has concerns, he should voice them. It goes beyond free speech, it’s his duty as an elected official. The fact that you think it is so awful that he doesn’t just support Obama without question troubles me. I adore Obama, but I would never demonize someone for thinking critically about his decisions.

You post quotes that are reportedly things Bernie said about Fidel Castro, saying it’s from a specific interview…yet the quote you posted doesn’t appear anywhere in the interview you indicated.

Now for the Ex-Im…you are very critical of Bernie for opposing it. I can understand your point on this one. His disapproval may be a knee-jerk reaction because, as you said, it helps big corporations more than anyone else. And you may have a good point about it also benefiting workers. I think it’s fair for you to be on a different side of this issue than Bernie. What isn’t fair is implying he’s some kind of asshole for not supporting it. He is allowed to maintain his stance about large corporations being our biggest danger. I agree with him. Again, his response to this may be reactive…but you can’t call him a flip-flopper. He has considered the evidence and stuck with his decision. The same cannot be said about Hillary Clinton. Not to say he has no room for compromise or growth…but opposing the Ex-Im doesn’t make him a monster…it falls in line with his priorities.

I’ll stop there. Again, I’m not trying to criticize you for having these opinions…support whichever candidate you prefer. I’m bothered at how you present them in such a divisive, caustic, demeaning, superior and dismissive fashion. Hell, you call a man who chained himself to African-American students to protest for civil rights “morally bankrupt.” You claimed to me that you have many great reasons for disliking Bernie, yet these and many more examples show you participating in propaganda and misdirection and exaggeration and sometimes just plain pig-headedness to support that position. The only reason it bothers me so much is because I’ve seen you do exactly the opposite. I’ve seen you do it the right way. With the name-calling and the putting-down of his supporters, you are dong the thing you accuse him of…dividing the party. One of your commenters said it best:

“What the word would be for the behavior of fervently and accusatorily bemoaning the lack of party unity while simultaneously doing everything you can think of to alienate the same people who would unify, I’m not sure.”

The thing that I think you want the most in this world is for the party to come together. You are doing the opposite of helping. We’ll be there in the end. If Hillary takes the nomination, we will all rally behind her. Watching you demonize this man for attacking your preferred candidate…saying how he’s going to hurt her in the general election…well, it sucks. Especially since it’s so obvious you are doing the exact thing you accuse him of. If by some long, wild chance he is our nominee, you will be (on a smaller scale) partly responsible for the divide it leaves. Or, at least, not doing anything to try and keep it together.

The tide is turning. Yes, he is still a longshot, but he has inspired millions of citizens to believe this government can actually be about THEM and not just about who has the money. Hillary is not in a position to convey that feeling…and it’s an important one. She is establishment through and through. Being such a negative force in trying to get him to stop running is not preserving democracy, as you would like to believe…it’s trying to shut it down. You occasionally throw jabs at Bernie for being a “socialist”…yet you want him to shut up so you can coronate your nominee. Think about that for a second.

As for why I prefer Bernie over Hillary…well, most of that has been covered above…but I will break it down to the simplest possible nutshell. It has nothing to do with scandal or e-mail or Benghazi or any of that nonsense. My problem is this…she claims to not be a natural politician but has behaved as nothing but. She stood on the debate stage and promised to overturn Citizens United while simultaneously taking money from a Super PAC. That is a total lack of conviction. If you are going to take advantage of the thing you claim to want to end…then it is a issue of principles for me. That’s just one example of why I see her as not much more than a professional politician.

Think what you please about these two candidates and please whole-heartedly and vocally support them to the absolute best of your ability. But don’t stoop to GOP tactics. Don’t bash the man for dividing the party with words and propaganda that drive the wedge deeper. I’m sure you can find enough actual factuality to support your position, these underhanded and misleading efforts are beneath you.