Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Sanders, Warren fight back against moderates

- Steve Peoples and Sara Burnett

DETROIT – Liberal firebrands Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren slapped back against moderate rivals who ridiculed “Medicare for All” during Tuesday night’s Democratic presidenti­al debate in which lesser-known pragmatist­s warned that “wish-list economics” would jeopardize the presidency.

The tug-of-war over the future of the party early in the 2020 season pits voters’ hearts against their heads as they balance their desire for an aggressive response to President Donald Trump against finding a safe choice who can win. Over and over, Sanders and Warren insisted their plans to transform the nation’s economy and health care system make up the core of a winning message.

“I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for,” said Warren, a Massachuse­tts senator, decrying Democratic “spinelessn­ess.”

Standing at Warren’s side at center stage, Sanders, a Vermont senator, agreed: “I get a little bit tired of Democrats afraid of big ideas.”

The fight with the political left was the dominant subplot on the first night of the second round of Democratic debates. Twenty candidates are spread evenly over two nights Tuesday and Wednesday. The second night of debates will feature early front-runner Joe Biden, the former vice president, as well as Kamala Harris, a California senator.

While much of the debate was dominated by attacks on Medicare for All, the issue of race emerged in the second hour. The candidates were unified in turning their anger toward Trump for using race as a central theme in his reelection campaign. Sanders said Trump exploited racism and others said the president’s rhetoric revived memories of the worst in the country’s history, including slavery.

“The legacy of slavery and segregatio­n and Jim Crow and suppressio­n is alive and well in every aspect of the economy and the country today,” said former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, adding that he supported the creation of a panel to support reparation­s for the descendant­s of slaves.

In many respects, the broader debate is only beginning. The Democratic nomination won’t be secured until the party’s national convention next July in Milwaukee.

Despite the long road ahead, there is an increasing sense of urgency for many candidates who are fighting for survival.

More than a dozen could be blocked from the next round of debates altogether – and effectively pushed out of the race – if they fail to reach new polling and fundraisin­g thresholds implemente­d by the Democratic National Committee.

O’Rourke is likely to qualify, even as he tries to stop his sharp slide in the polls. But those especially at risk among Tuesday’s lineup include Montana Gov. Steve Bullock and former Colorado Gov. John Hickenloop­er, the only governors in the running, and Midwestern natives such as Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan. Also on stage: former Maryland Rep. John Delaney and author and activist Marianne Williamson.

Klobuchar, who is struggling to keep her campaign alive, aligned herself with the struggling pragmatic wing Tuesday night: “We are more worried about winning an argument than winning an election.”

But perhaps no issue illustrate­s the evolving divide within the Democratic Party more than health care.

Sanders’ plan to create a free universal health care system, known as Medicare for All, has become a litmus test for liberal candidates, who have embraced the plan to transform the current health care system despite the political and practical risks. Medicare for All would abandon the private insurance market completely in favor of a taxpayer-funded system that would cover all Americans.

In targeting Medicare for All, the more moderate candidates consistent­ly sought to undermine the signature domestic policy proposal of the top two progressiv­es on the stage, Sanders and Warren. They variously derided Medicare for All as too costly, ineffective and a near-certain way to give Republican­s the evidence they needed that Democrats supported socialism.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States