Bernie Sanders Discusses Thoughts On Trump Nominee

Well, well, well—looks like Bernie Sanders just threw a curveball nobody saw coming. The self-proclaimed democratic socialist, the guy who never met a government program he didn’t want to expand, suddenly isn’t completely shutting the door on confirming a Trump nominee? What’s next, AOC endorsing tax cuts?

During his Sunday interview with CBS’s Face The Nation, Sanders gave a masterclass in political hedging. Margaret Brennan, ever eager to squeeze out a definitive “no” from him on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s potential confirmation as Secretary of Health and Human Services, instead got a lot of hemming, hawing, and a very noncommittal “I’ll make my decisions next week.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but not the knee-jerk rejection his party was probably expecting, either.

Sanders did the usual song and dance about how America is an “unhealthy society,” lamenting that life expectancy is lower in the U.S. compared to other wealthy nations. And hey, he’s not wrong that the health system in this country is a mess. But it’s fascinating how he can talk about the evils of “poisonous food” and Big Pharma greed while conveniently leaving out that the policies his own party champions—like endless government regulation and cozy backroom deals—are part of the problem.

“I have, up to now, voted for some Trump appointees. A few,” Sanders said. “I voted against most, and I’ll make my decisions next week. Where Kennedy is right is we are an unhealthy society — a point I’ve been making, many others have been making for a long time. One of the things that concerns me very much, and Kennedy mentioned it, is our life expectancy. How long our people live is five years less than other wealthy countries.”

Then came the Kennedy bashing. Sanders rattled off the usual Democratic Party-approved talking points: RFK Jr. has some “conspiracy theories,” he won’t commit to government-run healthcare, and, of course, the standard accusation that he sounds a little too much like Trump. Because in Bernie’s world, anything short of full-blown socialist redistribution must be a sign of creeping authoritarianism.

“It is an issue we have to deal with. And I think the kind of addictive and poisonous food that the food industry is providing our kids is one of the factors, not many. But when you have Kennedy come forward in saying he cannot — he believes, continues to believe that autism is caused by vaccines despite the fact that there have been a dozen studies over the years which disprove that. When he has other conspiracy theories when he cannot acknowledge that if you’re going to make America healthy, you’ve got to guarantee health care to all people. He was not clear about the need to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and lower prescription drug costs. So I was not particularly happy with his presentation,” Sanders continued.

But here’s where it gets interesting—Sanders, for all his bluster, refused to issue a hardline stance against Kennedy. That’s telling. The man has no problem shouting about billionaires from the rooftops, but when it comes to a key Trump nominee, he suddenly becomes a lot more careful with his words. Maybe, just maybe, Bernie realizes that Kennedy isn’t quite the political boogeyman the left wants to paint him as. Maybe he recognizes that Kennedy’s focus on health and corporate corruption resonates with some of his own supporters. Or maybe he just doesn’t want to alienate the growing number of disaffected Democrats who see Kennedy as a much-needed shake-up in a party that’s lost its way.

Whatever the reason, his reluctance to fully torpedo Kennedy’s nomination is an unwelcome headache for Democrats who expected him to fall in line. Because let’s be honest—if Sanders isn’t automatically rejecting a Trump pick, it’s a sign that there’s a real conversation happening, one that the left would rather shut down before it gains any traction.

And that’s the bigger story here. The Democratic Party has become so rigid, so obsessed with ideological purity, that even the slightest deviation from the script sends them into a panic. Sanders’ measured response—something that should be the norm in a functional democracy—is seen as an act of defiance. Meanwhile, the same people who claim to champion “diversity of thought” are now biting their nails, worried that Bernie might actually think before casting his vote. Imagine that.

So what happens next? Well, the Democrats will probably ramp up the pressure, demand Sanders “clarify” his position, and insist that anything less than total opposition to Kennedy is a betrayal. But Bernie, ever the political survivor, might just keep them guessing. And if he does end up supporting Kennedy, the left will have to grapple with a reality they weren’t prepared for: even within their own ranks, not everyone is on board with their increasingly narrow and extreme agenda.