Bernie Sanders Seems to Have Forgotten a Few of His Votes

That’s the problem with his holier-than-thou attitude.

Rex Shutterstock/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Bernie Sanders has been increasingly direct in his attacks against Hillary Clinton’s past positions. But there’s only one problem with his holier-than- thou narrative: Sanders’ own voting record shows he’s often voted for similar measures.

Sanders and his supporters seem to consider political consistency as the main measure of a politician’s character. “You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive,” Bernie subtweeted Clinton last month. But Sanders has been in the House or Senate for more than 25 years, and during all that time, any politician’s voting record is bound to have some inconsistencies. Sanders is no exception. At times he’s voted in favor of bills on national security, criminal justice, and immigration that he says he now opposes, attacking Clinton for casting the same votes that he did.

When President Barack Obama announced his plan to shutter the controversial detention facility in Guantanamo Bay last week, Sanders sent out a press release that made sure to ding Clinton over a vote she took that included language to keep Guantanamo Bay open. “Sanders was one of only three senators to vote in 2007 against barring the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to America,” the release said. “Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton voted for the amendment that kept the prison open.”

It’s true that Clinton voted for a resolution in 2007 that said detainees from the prison “should not be released into American society,” but that same year she co-sponsored legislation that directly stated the island prison should be shut down and that some prisoners should be transferred to US facilities. But Sanders voted in favor of a 2009 bill that more directly kept the prison open. And when, early in his presidency, Obama was exploring options to close Guantanamo, the Senate voted 90-6 in favor of a measure that barred the president from moving any detainees into prisons on the US mainland. Sanders was one of the 90 who voted in favor of the measure that rebuked Obama.

The Sanders campaign has also been hammering Clinton over the 1994 crime bill that increased penalties for repeat offenders and added funding to build more prisons. “What he does not do is throw people under the bus when it’s politically expedient,” Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver said on MSNBC earlier this month. “Whether it was in 1994 when then First Lady Clinton called African American youths ‘super predators’ to push a terrible crime bill or whether it was using coded language in 1996 to pass welfare reform, or whether it was throwing gay people under the bus with DOMA. That’s not what Bernie Sanders does. He stands tall with people even when the fight is not popular.” Except Sanders failed to stand tall against the popular fight in 1994. He sided with the majority of Democrats when he was a member of the House and voted for the crime bill that  Bill Clinton signed into law. When Sanders tried last week to explain his support for the 1994 bill, he cited the bill’s ban on assault weapons as part of his reason—except the initial House version that he voted for didn’t include the assault weapons ban, a provision added by the Senate.

Then there is Sanders’ criticism of Clinton on immigration. During a pre-Nevada TV town hall, Sanders threw shade at Clinton on Twitter for saying she’d seek to end the 3-year and 10-year bans on allowing immigrants who overstayed their visa to return to the country.

The only problem? Sanders voted for the measure. It was part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that passed as part of the defense appropriations bill that year.

As Clinton has frequently pointed out during debates when Sanders challenges her financial-reform bona fides, Sanders voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000, which eased regulations on Wall Street, thus paving the way for the credit default swaps that sank the economy in the Great Recession.

All of this isn’t to say Sanders’ attacks lack merit. While Clinton’s standard campaign speech has called for a repair of the country’s criminal justice system, she has stopped short of a full repudiation of the crime bill her husband signed into law. And, based on her track record representing New York in the Senate, she would have likely joined Sanders in voting for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, but she hadn’t yet been elected to the Senate when it became a law.

But that sort of nuanced measure of political evolutions hasn’t been part of Sanders’ attacks against Clinton. “When this so-called crime bill was being considered,” Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, said in the press release last week, “Bernie Sanders criticized its harsh incarceration and death penalty provisions. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, resorted to dog whistle politics and dehumanizing language. Bernie was right then and he’s right now.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate