October 14, 2015

Bernie Sanders made "a Kinsley gaffe—where a politician accidentally reveals a truth he did not intend to admit."

Says Katherine Mangu-Ward at Reason.com. What Sanders said was: "Every other major country on Earth, every one, including some small countries, say that when a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby."

Does Mangu-Ward mean that Sanders actually thinks the mother should stay home with the baby or did she mean to say it's actually true that the mother should stay home with the baby? If she only meant the former, didn't she make a Kinsley gaffe?

77 comments:

Gusty Winds said...

It's just a matter of how that works financially. My wife stayed home for ten years. Daycare costs didn't make the net income worth while. We lived on one check.

What's Bernie's point? Companies should provide one year paid FMLA? You can't run a business employing people who aren't actually at work.

I have a lot of women who are mothers that report to me. They would all rather be at home, today's economy won't allow it. I don't see the gaffe, unless he offended the sensibilities of the feminists.

John said...

That a mother should stay home with her child if doing so is possible is a truth that Democrats under certain circumstances imply but can never openly admit. This is because the issue points to the contradictory positions Democrats hold. On the one hand, Democrats pander to upper middle class and wealthy women by demanding handouts in the form of mandated lengthy maternity leave. The unspoken assumption behind such policies is that a mother should stay home with her children. On the other hand, Democrats pander to single women by embracing the radical feminist idea that there is no biological difference between men and women and the only reason women are not doing exactly the same thing and as well are better in every single field endeavor as men is because of sexism. This contradicts the assumption that women have any special duty or there is any benefit to mothers staying at home with their children.

Democrats are supposed to leave the assumption that mothers should be home with their children unspoken when pandering to married women by advocating mandated and extended maternity leave. Sanders didn't and that was his mistake.

buwaya said...

Sanders is an old man and not quite up with modern fashions, so on occasion he is in danger of speaking sense.
Death to fashion !

Gahrie said...

I have a lot of women who are mothers that report to me. They would all rather be at home, today's economy won't allow it.

Women have always worked outside the home due to economic necessity. However the goal used to be the father supporting the family while the mother raised the children and did housework. That is now considered Patriarchal oppression.

Gahrie said...

If she only meant the former, didn't she make a Kinsley gaffe?

Saying that women should stay home and raise the children used to be accepted wisdom (apart from feminist activists). Have we now reached the point that thinking this way is considered a gaffe?

madAsHell said...

What about the "I'm tired of hearing about Hillary's email" comment.....and then Hillary thanked Sanders. It was like they had rehearsed the exchange of comments.

jr565 said...

If the rest of the world feels that way there is probably a kernel of truth to the outlook. Most people don't have nannies to raise their kids, and most times it's the man out earning the cash.

dbp said...

I don't know about the "Kinsley gaffe" but something entirely different stuck out.

""Every other major country on Earth, every one, including some small countries, say that when a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby.""

Do countries have the ability to say things?

Even if we assume that most of the people in a country agree that a woman should have the ability to stay home with her child. This does not imply that the government is obliged to see to it that she is provided the means to do this. I think most people would agree that prospective parents ought to determine if they have the means to raise a child before they make one.

Brando said...

The reason it's a gaffe is that Sanders likely meant--if he's sticking with the usual leftist line on the issue--that other countries have policies that make it easier for women to choose to stay home with the baby, if that's what she wants. (Whether it's a wise policy or won't have negative repercussions on budgets and incentives is another matter of course, but that's at least the leftist argument)

His quote though sounds more like "women should stay home with babies, and government should make this happen" which of course gets into not just nanny-state but strict-nanny-disciplinarian-state.

Listening to these promises being made in primary campaigns is a lot like listening to some kid tell Santa she wants a pony when you know full well she's getting socks and a cheap doll.

Gahrie said...

This assumes that all women should be viewed as mothers, or potential mothers.

...or what used to pass for common sense.

robother said...

In most rural parts of the Muslim world and in sub-Saharan Africa, you see women stooping out in the fields, while the males are sipping tea or beer swapping lies in the little villages. I guess this counts in Bernie's world as stay-at-home moms, just as the American welfare queens do.
Socialists just can't get over their 19th century anger at the industrial revolution for taking fathers (and then mothers) out of their idyllic serfdom.

Nonapod said...

Personally I think trying to unpack what a socialist feather-brained old coot meant versus what he said is an exercise in futility.

Caligula said...

"Every other major country on Earth, every one, including some small countries, say that when a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby."

A reasonable interpretation of "every one ... say that when a mother has a bahy, she should stay home with that baby" is that there is a mandate that she do so, and if she doesn't she'll be subject to criminal prosecution.

What he probably meant to say was that if a mother is financially unable to do this then the rest of us should be taxed so government can pay her to do so.

But speaking just for me, if you wish to be free to live as you please then don't come back and say, "BUT you must pay for my choice!" Because, "I choose, you pay" is going to work only until those who pay find ways to limit your choices.

Roughcoat said...

In the words of the inimitable Anton Chigurh: "You pick the one right tool [for the job]."

And then: BLAM.

Barry Dauphin said...

Was he trying to say something about Hillary?

jr565 said...

"We don't want to support you. Please ask your husband/father of your child if he can support your baby before you conceive one, and complain of lack of financial support.

When the "government" helps, it is usually uninvolved others being asked to kick in. See, healthcare."


I often heard the argument from pro choicers that repubs only care about life in the womb, they don't care about anyone once they're born. What are they expecting republicans to do? Personally subsidize other people? We have a safety net that is paid for with taxes. What more should people be obligated to provide? Should we take tests for the kids so they graduate school? should we cut up their food so they dont' choke? pay for their rent?
No one is doing that for me. Why would I be required to do it for others?

Big Mike said...

We've been trying to tell all of you that Sanders' ideas are out of the 1930s. Will you start to pay attention yet?

Char Char Binks said...

He accidentally revealed that believes a woman's place is in the home, barefoot and pregnant. That's the latest Progressive stance, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Sanders probably meant women should be able to stay home with their babies and that the Family Leave Act should be strengthened. I don't think for a minute he was suggesting that all women should stay home with the baby.

Birkel said...

Was there another spill in the Crazy Aisle?

William Chadwick said...

Never heard of "the Kinsley gaffe" until today, and this is my second time encountering it. Instapundit thinks the big Kinsley gaffe last night was Hillary characterizing Republicans as enemies.

Anonymous said...

Gahrie sounds like a throwback.

sunsong said...

when a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby."

That's a great argument for abortion

Gahrie said...

Do you view your female students as just biological breeders, Gahrie? Or do you educate their minds, not just their bodies?

Where did you get the "just breeders" nonsense?

What I said was:

"This assumes that all women should be viewed as mothers, or potential mothers."

...or what used to pass for common sense.


Men can never have children, and most women can. Thus I view all women as potential mothers, and think everyone else should also.

My female students know that I respect them.

Gahrie said...

Gahrie sounds like a throwback.

If that means that I long for the days of sanity, guilty as charged.

EMD said...

I didn't take Sanders's comment to mean she would stay home forever. He just wants to give away guaranteed across-the-board paid maternity leave.

Gahrie said...

The man's time for "choice" comes before he deposits his sperm into the woman.

Not always. Men have been forced to pay child support to their rapists, and to pay child support after the woman has impregnated herself with sperm that was "deposited" elsewhere, like from a discarded condom.

The woman's (final) time for "choice" comes after his sperm is deposited in her, and does not leave...

..and our precise argument is that her opportunity for choice should occur at the same time as men's, before the sex occurs.

Biology (and technology) now awards woman the final say on "choice".

No a crappy Supreme Court decision does that.

Sorry, boys, it is a timing thing, just as for generations, you fellas had the "final" choice in making your deposits.

Actually, apart from rapists, women have always had the final say on whether or not sex occurs.

jr565 said...

"Safe haven laws are laws that allow any person statutorily defined by law, usually parents, to abandon an unharmed newborn baby at any location permitted by law."

Yet another choice for, predominantly, the mother. A mother could do this, and not tell the father that he is even a father.

Gahrie said...

Many women do not view themselves as potential mothers. I think you should respect the basic choices that women make for themselves.

I should respect delusional thinking? Unless they are infertile, every woman is a potential mother.

Again, not every woman is a potential mother, just as not every man is a potential father.

Yet according to feminism, every man is a potential rapist. How does that happen? Again, unless he is infertile, every man is a potential father.

New ways of seeing, Gahrie.

New does not mean better.




Sebastian said...

"What's Bernie's point? Companies should provide one year paid FMLA? You can't run a business employing people who aren't actually at work."

You can, if you pay your employees much less and if government pays for some of the benefits and services involved.

Sweden can do that by, you guessed it, paying employees less, and, you guessed it, collecting more taxes from the poor--higher income taxes, taxes on benefits, and regressive consumptions/VAT taxes.

An honest leftist would spell that out. Then the voters can decide. There are honest leftists, but not in the Dem party. This is why the GOP has to be the party of no. We could make a deal with responsible Swedish social democrats. Dems will just demagogue for ever more transfers--it's never enough for them.

garage mahal said...

It's just a baby, not a fetus. Get back to work!

Nichevo said...

Glynn,

You made your choice when you said "no anal!"

Just as well, that's how lawyers are made.

Brando said...

"An honest leftist would spell that out. Then the voters can decide. There are honest leftists, but not in the Dem party. This is why the GOP has to be the party of no. We could make a deal with responsible Swedish social democrats. Dems will just demagogue for ever more transfers--it's never enough for them."

Hell, just put it out to the people--do you want all these benefits the Dems are promising? Go ahead--just ask them where the money is coming from and see if it makes sense. If voters want lower real wages and higher taxes, they can make that happen. And when they're done realizing that taxing more and more from the rich won't bring the revenue they want (and results in less business growth and more unemployment as well) and have to make the middle class pick up more of the tab, they can keep that right on. Maybe our GDP can sink down to number four or five before the morons figure out there is no free lunch.

And point out to the childless that they should be happy to take less salary and pay more taxes so that their breeder co-workers can stay home with their snot-rockets, because society. Think that's unfair? Clearly you have an anti-social attitude, comrade!

jr565 said...

"Safe haven laws shield the parent or agent of the parent from prosecution for abandonment or neglect.

Wow, you don't say. So, they don't have to assume parental responsibility? SO then why must men assume parental responsibility?

"Relinquishment of a newborn is legal only if the relinquished newborn is within the age limit permitted by state laws.
And by the same token, if she realizes she can't afford her kid and hasn't had an abortion she still doesn't need to assume parental responsibility and can drop it off at a hospital, and wont be prosecuted. I assume she doesn't need to tell the dad that he is even a dad. No questions asked. The baby is not in her womb at this point.

Nichevo said...

And if you don't think we've figured out that women are f****** liars half the time (go ahead baby, its okay this time...guess I was wrong, teehee) it's really not worth discussing. Men should have no responsibility whatsoever, then perhaps women would be more careful about the men they sleep with. Or the methods of contraception they use.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nichevo said...

Of course every fertile woman is a potential mother. Words mean things. If you are capable of getting pregnant then you are a potential mother. A fertile woman is one capable of getting pregnant. Why don't you just say what's true: that you want to be in charge? Then we can get along with laughing you out of the county.

I get it, we get it, you're a dyke or a cat lady, you would never have a man inside you, let alone come inside you. But, if you did, and if your eggs haven't expired yet, then yes, you too are a potential mother.

It's a fact question not an opinion question. I understand you don't like that because it makes you lose, but I don't care that you don't like it.

jr565 said...

"In the 21st century, biology is not destiny.
No sperm is going to get into your from a hottub, you know"

Potentiality is not destiny. Potentiality is the potential for destiny.

n.n said...

Absolute wealth differences are not the relevant issue. There will always be a select few people who enjoy beachfront properties in Hawaii. The issue is inflationary economics that deprive people of equitable return for their labor.

Social services can only be considered legitimate when a society recognizes intrinsic value. The goal, however, is a reconciliation of individual dignity and intrinsic value.

As for women and men, there is a further reconciliation of natural imperatives. Sanders' and feminists' (both male and female) prescriptions serve a population comprised of nominal adults. The State-established pro-choice cult is a quasi-religious institution that enables adults to indulge in juvenile fantasies and shift responsibility.

While women and men may contribute to evolutionary fitness directly or obliquely, there is no legitimate argument to normalize or promote the latter in a population. Men and women need to learn the fine art of adults making viable choices and both can have it all, eventually, in turn.

Nichevo said...

Of course, you can't have it all, fellas. <-- You spelled "gals" wrong.

jr565 said...

Or women for that matter. (not paying child support).
Suppose a woman gives up her child and drops it off at a hospital. A man later determines that the kid that was abandoned was his own. He knows that she is the mother. Should he ask her for child support?
She gave up the kid, under safe haven laws, and isn't obligated to pay for her kid.

damikesc said...

This assumes that all women should be viewed as mothers, or potential mothers.

Biologically, that is simple reality.

That was basic biological "common sense" before technology and birth control advance, Gahrie.

Given that none have a 100% success rate, it is still simple biological reality.

We need to stop viewing all men as fathers, or potential fathers, as well.

Except that is also true biologically. Feelings don't trump biology and science.

Sanders probably meant women should be able to stay home with their babies and that the Family Leave Act should be strengthened. I don't think for a minute he was suggesting that all women should stay home with the baby.

I'll go with "What if a Republican said this", if you don't mind. Bernie hates chicks.

Birches said...

On the one hand, Democrats pander to upper middle class and wealthy women by demanding handouts in the form of mandated lengthy maternity leave.

Since most of the comments on this thread will be deleted eventually, I'll respond to this. You're absolutely right. It's not a shift worker at Burger King that will take maternity leave at 65% pay, it's the people who could probably afford to stay at home for the three months anyway. What a crock!

Lydia said...

California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island already have guaranteed paid parental leave, which is funded by employees’ payroll deductions that cost individual employees less than $1 a week. That's from an article in Fortune magazine. The article also says that the mandated paid leave hasn’t hurt most employers’ bottom lines.

Char Char Binks said...

Every mother is a potential abortionist.

AprilApple said...

All the gaffes that were missed by the pro-dem hack MSM. or -the MSM
Jonah Goldberg noticed another:

"This should properly be considered a Kinsley gaffe in that she accidentally told the truth. For much of the night, she stuck to her focus-grouped talking points, boasting about how she knows how to build consensus and work the system in Washington “to get things done.” And then, in a spontaneous slip, she revealed that she considers Republicans — altogether — not only her enemy, but the enemy she is most proud of. It would have been nice if Anderson Cooper, Jim Webb or one of the pushovers on stage had seized that point and asked, “How can you talk about building consensus when you’ve just boasted that you consider all Republicans your enemy?” Clinton is much more of a Manichean than she usually lets on. That’s one reason she keeps Sid Blumenthal on retainer as a Wormtongue. He says the things about Republican conspirators she wants to hear and believe."

Brando said...

"This should properly be considered a Kinsley gaffe in that she accidentally told the truth. For much of the night, she stuck to her focus-grouped talking points, boasting about how she knows how to build consensus and work the system in Washington “to get things done.” And then, in a spontaneous slip, she revealed that she considers Republicans — altogether — not only her enemy, but the enemy she is most proud of. It would have been nice if Anderson Cooper, Jim Webb or one of the pushovers on stage had seized that point and asked, “How can you talk about building consensus when you’ve just boasted that you consider all Republicans your enemy?” Clinton is much more of a Manichean than she usually lets on. That’s one reason she keeps Sid Blumenthal on retainer as a Wormtongue. He says the things about Republican conspirators she wants to hear and believe."

It is absolutely disgusting to have a major party nominee write off the other party as an "enemy"--not the opposition, but an enemy, the same words we'd used to describe Hitler in 1942. Not only can you not build coalitions when you write off the other half of the country, you can't lead in any meaningful way.

She needs to be called out on this, and hard--I'm sure she'd come back with "I was just joking" or "I meant the way they treat me, I don't think they're evil" but take this fight to her. It reveals more about her way of thinking and why she inspires such disgust among half the country.

I'd say the same about any Republican nominee who expressed that feeling towards Democrats. Campaigns are campaigns, and we do have opposition parties, but once you consider the other side actually evil you have crossed the line into banana republic territory.

Laslo Spatula said...

Chick stuff.

Women are gonna do what they want to do.

And they will want to be loved unconditionally for doing it.

That about covers it.


I am Laslo.

damikesc said...

California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island already have guaranteed paid parental leave, which is funded by employees’ payroll deductions that cost individual employees less than $1 a week. That's from an article in Fortune magazine. The article also says that the mandated paid leave hasn’t hurt most employers’ bottom lines.

Explains why those states are so highly regarded for businesses. Really.

Hey, isn't CA laden with high tech firms trying to bring in cheap, virtual slave labor to replace more expensive domestic labor?

You assume people do not have free will?

Are you denying basic biology?

OK, women have eggs. Men have sperm.

Both have a role.

You can do whatever you want to avoid that role, but the role exists.

Didn't they cover this with you a while ago?

It really IS possible for a woman not to become a mother, and a male to not become a father.

No joke. But they are always POTENTIAL ones as long as they're, you know, fertile. Which for men is basically their entire life. Women are potential mothers. Men are potential fathers.

We'll next discuss the difference in potential and actual.

damikesc said...

No. Those female biolgical parts do not turn into babies without another step.

No potential for motherhood without that step.


A motionless car has potential energy. It won't become kinetic until it is pushed or moved via an engine.

Doesn't mean the potential energy is non-existent.

damikesc said...

Not after teh performance the Republicans have turned in in the past years. No joke. They are working against the country, and should be considered as the enemy in order to advance...

Because passing rules that the majority of voters hate via fiat is the American way.

I think Democrats should be rounded up into camps.

A woman is not a car.

Firm grasp of the obvious there. So, we've learned that analogies are a bit above your head.

You really do not believe in free will, for women or men, eh?

You really don't get the concept of "potential", do you?

You have the potential to make cogent arguments. That you fail to do so doesn't mean the potential doesn't exist.

BN said...

All this talk is a purposefully provoked argument intended to obfuscate. The purpose of the proposed policy is to extend the opportunity to steal OPM and deliver the proceeds to those who participate in the scam (i.e., Dem voters). That is all.

Lydia said...

It is absolutely disgusting to have a major party nominee write off the other party as an "enemy"--not the opposition, but an enemy, the same words we'd used to describe Hitler in 1942. Not only can you not build coalitions when you write off the other half of the country, you can't lead in any meaningful way.

I'm not a Hillary apologist -- honest. I shudder at the thought of her as president. But I think we need to put that "enemy" comment in the context of the debate. Here from the full transcript:

COOPER: And welcome back to the final round of the CNN Democratic presidential debate.

This is a question to each of you. Each of you, by the way, are going to have closing statements to make. Each of you will have 90 seconds. But a final question to each of you. If you can, just try to — 15 seconds if you can.

Governor Chafee, Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.” You’ve all made a few people upset over your political careers. Which enemy are you most proud of?

(LAUGHTER)

CHAFEE: I guess the coal lobby. I’ve worked hard for climate change and I want to work with the coal lobby. But in my time in the Senate, tried to bring them to the table so that we could address carbon dioxide. I’m proud to be at odds with the coal lobby.

COOPER: Governor O’Malley?

O’MALLEY: The National Rifle Association.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians.

(LAUGHTER)

Probably the Republicans. (LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Sanders?

SANDERS: As someone who has taken on probably every special interest that there is in Washington, I would lump Wall Street and the pharmaceutical industry at the top of my life of people who do not like me.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Webb?

WEBB: I’d have to say the enemy soldier that threw the grenade that wounded me, but he’s not around right now to talk to.

COOPER: All right. Time for closing statements. Each of you will have 90 seconds.

Governor Chafee, let’s begin with you.

CHAFEE: Thank you, Anderson. Thank you, CNN. And thank you, Facebook, for sponsoring this debate.

damikesc said...

Do you think every farm animal has the potential to be your lover?

See? Even though you waste away your potential to be amusing, the potential remains. This horrible post doesn't remove your potential anymore than your prior horrible posts do.

And, the Dems name a civil rights groups and half of the country as enemies they're proud of having. Another names one that allows poor people to have heat in the winter at low costs as an enemy.

Does the Dem party assume everybody who votes for them is a rich shitbrick from Manhattan?

Quaestor said...

Wikipedia: A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some truth that a politician did not intend to admit.

Ann Althouse (from Katherine Mangu-Ward): A Kingley gaffe -- where a politician accidentally reveals a truth he did not intend to admit.

While differently worded these definitions are essentially the same. Mangu-Ward's use of "accidentally" is superfluous. A gaff is by definition a ill-timed, unguarded, or otherwise accidental utterance. An intentional gaff is a contradiction. When a gaffe is intentional it ceases to be a gaff, and becomes instead a Machiavellian stratagem. Machiavelli's theory centers on the proposition that the first and only task of the prince is to gain and retain power. Applying that dictum to republics has the office holder's sole duty to be staying in office. To stay in office the unprincipled politician must shift his positions constantly, to adapt himself to the trends of public opinion, and do so in such a way as to be seen to be leading rather than following. (All of us can think of one or two political chameleons who shift and squirm in just this way, though the fashionable term now is "evolve.") A well-executed "political gaff" can function as what was formerly known as a trial balloon, something offered for the public to react to. As a tactic the intentional gaffe is obsolete, largely replaced by push polling.

The troublesome part of the Kinley gaff is the notion that a truth is revealed. Unless one holds that politicians are treasure troves of arcane wisdom disclosed to the uninitiated only by accident (a favorite trope of UFO cultist, btw) the hidden truth must be something about the politician personal convictions, philosophy, sexual proclivities, or financial activities, that would be impolitic to make known to the voters, like the stock portfolio of a self-proclaimed socialist, or the pornography collection of a social conservative. Consequently the Kinsley gaff can be precisely qualified as a special case of parapraxis, the so-called "Freudian slip." in which the repression is deliberate rather than subliminal. Socialists and social democrats are particularly vulnerable to this kind of conflict because virtually any political line of reasoning if developed logically from historical evidence will lead to a contradiction of socialist principles.

What does not follow from the definition is Althouse's idea that Mangu-Ward has herself committed a Kinsley gaff. By definition a Kinsley gaff is an accidental utterance of a politician. Mangu-Ward is a journalist. Unless one merges these two categories it is logically impossible for Katherine Mangu-Ward to gaff in the Kinsley manner.

Gahrie said...

Choose wisely, just like we women do.


Riiiiiiggght..........

Rusty said...


Choose wisely, just like we women do.


If you women had chosen wisely there'd be no need for Roe V Wade.

jr565 said...

A mans choice is this: I want to be a dad. Fuck you.
I don't want to be a dad. Fuck you.

Meanwhile if youre a woman - my career. Fuck the kid and fuck the dad.
If I don't want the abortion but I don't want to be a mom - Here, you can do all this cool stuff. YOu want to drop the baby on a doorstep? Empowerment! YOu want to give it up for adoption. Yo go girl.
If youre a man, and have the exact same objection to being a dad, fuck you, it takes two to tango. You now have to pay for MY choice.
Or, if a woman doesn't tell the man he's going to be a dad and drops the kid off at a hostpital doorstep, fuck you. I don't have to tell you you're a dad. I get to completely give up my parental rights because I have a vagina!!!!

Quaestor said...

Touché means you concede your opponent's point. It derives from fencing, and is said by the loser.

jr565 said...

And the man woudlnt' have to pay for his offspring if the women aborted the kid. The reason the baby is in the world at all has nothing do with the choice of the man. (Even if he wanted it). If you are the sole chooser, you should not get to then obligate others to pay for your choice. You pay for your choice.

jr565 said...

if this weren't a man, but a woman dropping her baby off at a hospital, the state would assume the cost of the kid and woudlnt' even question that its ok for the women to completely waive paternity. Is that fair?
As a man, asked to honor womens equality, I cant help but note that said laws are skewed completely against ME. Is that what patriarchy is all about? You get all the advantages and I have the responsibility to pay for them? Sounds awesome.

jr565 said...

I'm actually not pro abortion, and pro parents paying for their kids. I'm merely pointing out the laws completely skew one way at the detriment of MY sex.
Its not logical to have safe haven laws, but then demand that dads be responsible to pay for their kdis. Since you didn't require that of the mom. It's not logical to say moms can opt out, even after the baby is born, but the dad has to pay simply because the woman made a choice. I see totally why YOU are for it. Because you get all the advantages of the scenario.

Michael K said...

"It's just a baby, not a fetus. Get back to work!"

Garage is the only one who got the gaffe. Typically, garage misses the significance. Bernie called a very late term fetus a BABY !

OMG ! You are not allowed to do that until the first birthday at the earliest.

Michael K said...

Men should have no responsibility whatsoever, then perhaps women would be more careful about the men they sleep with.

How about the men paying child support for other men;s children ? In some studies when DNA testing became common, 25% of children were not related to the legal "father" when testing in support cases. It didn't matter. The guy still had to pay,

Ken B said...

This is bizarre. If she didn't think Sanders said what he thought she wouldn't think it a Kinsley gaffe. How can there be any doubt?

Gahrie said...


Sanders probably meant women should be able to stay home with their babies and that the Family Leave Act should be strengthened. I don't think for a minute he was suggesting that all women should stay home with the baby.

I bet you wouldn't have been so charitable and understanding if a Republican had said it though.........

Quaestor said...

Sanders: When a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby.

Sunsong: That's a great argument for abortion.

That's a great argument for euthanasia.

Static Ping said...

Sanders problem is a Democratic Party's coalition problem. Some parts of the coalition have little in common or outright conflicting positions compared to other parts of the coalition. What he says here is works for part of the party and not the other.

The proper way to talk to the Democratic Party base is to use vague platitudes that mean nothing but are interpreted as supporting the position of whatever bloc, else you end up with with incoherent positions that get turned into things like "colleges are rape cultures that everyone should attend for free."

Jonathan Graehl said...

With the right *if ...* preface, you can eventually write something that sounds interesting, so forget Althouse's prompt. Sanders meant we should have more paid leave for *mothers* w/ newborns, period. This does imply a higher value on women raising infants than men. But this is in the acceptable-sexism space for both traditionalists (who want her at home period) and feminists (who want favorable treatment in general).

Drago said...

Michael K: "Garage is the only one who got the gaffe. Typically, garage misses the significance."

Infinite Monkey Theorem-type of thing.

Jane the Actuary said...

Missed this before. . .
What the Swedes do is this: parental leave lasts for 18 months. Mom takes most, dad takes some. Then the tyke is trundled off to daycare. And that's pretty much universally the case -- once the kid hits daycare age, there is no "stay-at-home mom." Because daycare is free, living costs (and taxes) are high, and what would you do if you didn't know any other moms who were at home during the day?

And I think that's pretty much what Sanders, Obama, Clinton -- the whole lot of them -- want.

Smilin' Jack said...

when a mother has a baby...

They should both be euthanized. Jesus, having a baby is the worst thing you can do to the planet. Some people just have no respect for Gaia.

rcommal said...

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

rcommal said...

Bernie Sanders truly is a flashback from "back in the day."

rcommal said...

To paraphrase and encapsulate:

Bernie Sanders believes that political activism is a calling. He has believed that from way back in the day, and still he so believes it. This is consistency.

Bernie Sanders believes that such a thing is so important that, as a person called, he ought not have to provide for his own. This is something he did [demonstrated].

I'll give this to Bernie Sanders: He chose a gal, way back when, who was willing to put up with his shit. She did that, and then she raised his son.

No wonder that Bernie Sanders betrayed a fundamental belief of his. At a bare minimum, he owes that acknowledgement to at least two people.

Moneyrunner said...

What’s curious about this discussion is that no one has interpreted what Bernie said literally. They all appended a Liberal/Socialist interpretation. Read it again:

"Every other major country on Earth, every one, including some small countries, say that when a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby."

That means when a woman has a baby she should stay home and raise it. Period. It says nothing about day care, paid leave, taxpayer support. It says women should raise their own children, at home.

That puts Bernie somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh with regard to a woman’s role in raising a family.

the wolf said...

You can't run a business employing people who aren't actually at work.

This. And what liberals don't want to admit is someone has to bear the cost of this. It might manifest itself in lower wages across the board, higher prices, etc. There isn't magical pool of cash that companies hoard that can be accessed for this purpose.