A Democratic Opponent in the Primaries might stop the continual triangulating to the Right

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/5910-forget-sarah-palin-and-donald-trump-obama-needs-a-challenge-from-the-left

Cast your minds back to November. Barack Obama had received his "shellacking" in the midterm elections, as the Republicans regained a majority in the House of Representatives and seized control of 29 of the 50 state governorships. It was the worst midterm defeat for the Democrats since 1938. Just a week earlier the president's approval ratings had fallen to a record low of 37%.

Fast forward six months, and the president is enjoying the "Bin Laden bounce". His approval ratings stand at 52%, according to Gallup - up six points on April. Historians may look back on 1 May 2011, and the killing of Osama, as the day Obama secured his re-election.

:snip:

The tragedy is that Obama needs to be held to account - but from a leftwing, not rightwing, direction. He has embraced and affirmed a centre-right world view utterly at odds with his 2008 presidential campaign, with its promises of "change", "reform" and a decisive break from the Bush-Cheney era.

:snip:

Liberals have given Obama a pass. Some avert their gaze; others proffer excuses. He needs more time, they say. But he has had 29 months in office. He is a good man in a bad world, they say, before blaming the Republicans for all America's ills. But it wasn't a Republican Congress that forced him, for instance, to double the size of the Bagram facility - where human rights groups have documented torture and deaths - and deny prisoners the right to challenge their detention. He did that on his own. Bagram is Obama's Guantánamo.

More at the link -- please read the article before jumping all over the post.

Let's not forget the lesson of such a Primary between Ted Kennedy and President Carter. It gave us Reagan. The Democratic Primary with an incumbent President only weakens the Party.

Party. And Being pro Gay and for legalizing Pot only weakens the party.
I wish the party was more interested in doing what is the right thing than in keeping its' fucking powder dry and being so strong.

They'll at least have a scapegoat for their failures.

Butterfly Ballots -- and 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida who voted for W --

and tens of thousands of votes in Florida for other third parties --

yet we still hear that the 537 votes by which W "won" were specificially

those cast by Nader voters!!

In fact, at one point in the actual, original and real recount -- W's "win" was down

to 34 votes!!

And, overall, journalists who did the final recount were clear that Gore won no matter

how the votes were counted!

You write: "yet we still hear that the 537 votes by which W 'won' were specificially those cast by Nader voters!!"

I don't recall seeing anyone on DU make such a meaningless claim.

The actual argument is this: Nader had a legal right to run on the Green Party ticket. He also had a legal right to run in the Democratic primaries or to refrain from running at all. He made his choice. At the time he made his choice -- not as a matter of hindsight, but based on the information available even in 1999 -- it was reasonably foreseeable that his choice to run as a Green risked splitting the vote and allowing the Republican candidate to make President with a minority of the popular votes. This was loudly and repeatedly pointed out to Nader all through 2000.

If Nader had not been on the ballot, some of those who actually voted for him would have voted for whatever lesser-known Green ran. Some would have engaged in different vote-wasting exercises, by voting for a different hopeless candidate or by writing in Mickey Mouse or by staying home. Some, however, would have voted for Bush or Gore. More would have voted for Gore. Thus, a Nader decision not to run would have resulted in a net benefit to Gore (more than 10,000 votes in Florida, according to a poll that Nader himself posted on his website). Gore would have carried Florida by a cheat-proof margin and would have become President.

So, Nader had a legal right to run, but those of us who can count have a legal right to criticize him for it. And, of course, people who blithely voted for Nader in 2000, and then saw to their horror the result of their folly, had the legal right to abandon him in 2004, as the vast majority of them did.

Getting back to the OP, which is about primaries: Nader should have run in the Democratic primaries in 2000. He probably wouldn't have become President, but that of course was also true of the course he actually selected. As a candidate in the primaries, he would have been in televised debates and would have had much more opportunity to get his views out. He would've gotten my vote in the primary. I would've been willing to give up my chance to influence the Bradley versus Gore contest, but I was NOT willing to give up my chance to influence the Bush versus Gore contest.

The Nader people get extremely tiresome when they keep talking about Florida Democrats who voted for Bush or how Gore didn't carry his home state. Yes, I fault the Florida Dems who voted for Bush, but no one of them, individually, had the impact on the election that Nader did. Nor did Gore face, and get wrong, any choice as clear-cut as Nader's decision to run as a Green. For exmaple, Gore might have carried Tennessee and/or West Virginia if he'd tacked to the right, or even just campaigned more in those states, but that could have cost him votes elsewhere. He might have carried New Hampshire if he'd picked Kerry as his running mate, but Lieberman did help the ticket to be competitive in Florida; against the Gore-Kerry ticket, Bush could've carried Florida with less effort, and might thus have been able to flip some other state by investing time and money there.

All this criticism of Gore is hindsight (and most of it unclear even with the benefit of hindsight). The criticism of Nader, however, is not based on hindsight.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There is no "the" 537 votes. Even if all Floridians had voted by paper ballot, with each voter signing his or her ballot, you couldn't pull 537 specific slips out of the Bush pile and say "These are the ones that gave him Florida's electoral votes."

I'm sure that at least 537 registered Democrats voted for Bush. (I'm also sure that at least 538 registered Republicans voted for Gore.) So what? That fact doesn't preclude inquiry into Nader's decision, any more than it precludes inquiry into the right-wing purging of the voter rolls, or the numerous issues about the count -- or, for that matter, into whether Gore blew the election by picking Lieberman.

I criticize everyone who voted for Bush. Nevertheless, I can say with certainty that there is no individual Florida Democrat whose foolish decision to vote for Bush resulted in Bush becoming President. I can say, with a very high degree of confidence, that Nader's decision to run as a Green did have that result.

Did Nader's decision make it inevitable? No, of course not. A U.S. Presidential election is decided by a whole host of factors. You're certainly right to point to the impeded recount, the wrongly decided Supreme Court case, and Diebold/ES&S. Those were factors, too -- but, again, that doesn't mean that Nader's acts were irrelevant, any more than it means that the pre-election purging was irrelevant.

Let me give you an analogy from the field where Nader first made his mark -- automobile safety. In Unsafe at Any Speed, Nader criticized American cars from the point of view of the second collision (after the car hits an object or another car, the result of that first collision is that the driver's or passenger's body hits part of the car in the second collision). Nader argued that components like the steering wheel and the dashboard could be designed so that the second collision would be less harmful and more people would survive auto accidents. An auto executive who modeled your response would say to Nader, "You're avoiding the reality of that delivery truck that ran the red light and thereby hit the car that we manufactured. It was GENERAL MOTORS who made that other driver break the law?"

That wouldn't be regarded as a meritorious defense on the part of GM. We would all recognize that even a comparatively simple matter like a death in an auto accident can have more than one cause. In a lawsuit, if it were shown that the truck ran the red light and that the GM car was defectively designed, then both the truck owner and GM would be held liable to the dead person's family.

So I'm really tired of Naderites who try to avoid discussion of their hero's conduct by criticizing other people.

so on what are you basing the nonsense that they had anything to do with Nader?

Especially when we know that GORE won the election --

and the endless tampering and attempts to steal by the GOP?


All you've been given in the "Nader did it!" scapegoating is a way to distract you --

Try to focus on the fascist rally and what that meant in stopping the recount --

Focus on the Supreme Court Gang of 5 without which W wouldn't have been in the Oval office!!

I remember seeing a poll (I think it was an exit poll) that Nader himself posted on his website. Nader voters were asked what they would have done if Nader had not been on the ballot.

Some, of course, selected other choices that made them irrelevant to the outcome -- vote for a different minor-party candidate, write in someone, leave the presidential line blank, or stay home altogether.

Some, however, said they would have voted for Bush or for Gore. Not surprisingly, more would have voted for Gore. The Gore percentage minus the Bush percentage, multiplied by the total number of Nader voters, represents the net gain that Gore would have enjoyed if Nader had decided not to run.

In Florida, that gain was far more than Bush's officially reported margin over Gore. It was probably more than the Republicans could have stolen. There are major problems with our elections, but that doesn't mean that the campaign is irrelevant and the voting is irrelevant because the Republicans have unlimited ability to tamper with the vote.

You write, "Try to focus on the fascist rally...." Some of us can focus on more than one thing. For example, you never mention Katherine Harris's illegal purge of the voter rolls. That affected many more votes than were at issue in the recount. (My guess is that, if the illegal purge had been undone before the election instead of after, then Gore would have become President, regardless of butterfly ballots, Nader, the rally, and the Supreme Court.) The improper stopping of the recount doesn't exonerate Harris -- and it doesn't exonerate Nader.

as was quite clear, the very fact that Nader voters came out ...

TO VOTE FOR NADER ... was something that greatly helped the Democrats in other

races --


Most American voters are staying home and have been staying home for decades ---

they're not dumb -- and they're not "centrist" --

This is a liberal nation -- 80% of the public want an end to the wars --

76%+ of Americans want MEDICARE FOR ALL --

on and on -- the polls ever more are showing how liberal this nation is --

And, that's always been true, but the rightwing has done everything they can to keep

that info from the public --

It certainly is convenient for your argument to say that Nader voters would not have voted for Gore. The facts (along with elementary common sense) say otherwise:



Thus, the nationwide average would have been a net gain for Gore equal to 18 percent of the total Nader vote. The percentage would vary by state, but anything remotely close to 18 percent in Florida would have given Gore the state's electoral votes, and the Presidency.

You should also note the precipitous falloff in Nader's support from 2000 to 2004. The vast majority of his supporters abandoned him. My guess is that they did so for two major reasons. First, Florida 2000 showed them that the theoretical danger of splitting votes on the left could very easily become reality, and that Nader's strategy was therefore idiotic. Second, Bush's first term showed them that Republican rule was truly horrible, and that Nader's attempt to equate the two major parties was absurd.

BTW, although I disagree with your conclusion, I would not have busted your post in #70.

won by Nader . . .

50% of 97,420 votes = 48,700 for Gore --


You also have to consider the PURGES in Florida which took "overwhelmingly

Democratic voters off the rolls" -- in fact, half were minorities.

94,000 Democrats were removed --


The Butterfly ballot also gave Buchanan just short of 3,500 votes -- of which Buchanan

himself says 95% to 98% were intended for Gore!

Let's just use 95% -- that would be 3,325 votes for Gore.

The failure to do a hand recount of the double votes also cost Gore an estimated 662 votes --


And the 200,000 "Democrats" who voted for W in Florida --


You're also not considering the OTHER THIRD PARTIES which took more than 40,000 votes --

Natural Law, Libertarians, Socialists, Workers, etal --

OK -- so that's ...

94,000 PURGED DEMS
3,325 Butterfly
200,000 "Democrats" who voted for W in Florida
40,000 Other Third Parties
________

337,325 votes

PLUS 128,000 votes in Miami-Dade County which were NEVER COUNTED due to the GOP

fascist rally sponsored by the Repugs -- !!


The fascist rally which stopped the counting of those 128,000 votes --

and the Gang of 5 on the Supreme Court who STOPPED that vote counting is where

the steal lies --


AND THAT SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR TO YOU GIVEN THE JOURNALIST CONSORTIUM WHO DID THE

RECOUNT AND REPORTED THAT GORE WON THE ELECTION OVERALL -- NO MATTER HOW THE VOTES WERE COUNTED --

AND THAT INCLUDED FLORIDA --


http://cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html


So, please explain again how you know that specifically the 543 vote Bush "win" were

votes that had Nader-voter's fingerprints on them?



:eyes:

You write:

Why should I explain a position I never took, and in fact specifically disavowed? I argued that trying to select 500-some odd votes out of Bush's total was meaningless.

The California Green Party piece that you link is based on a false dichotomy: Either Nader was "the" reason (as in the sole reason) that Bush became President, or Nader was completely blameless and had nothing to do with it. For the reasons I've set forth, I reject that dichotomy. An event can have more than one cause.

I've done my best to explain the reasoning behind my criticism of Nader. My explanation hasn't convinced you that he bears a share of the blame for the bad result. You've made several valid points about other things that went wrong, but you haven't convinced me that the malfeasance by the likes of Katherine Harris somehow exonerates Nader. It looks like we'll just have to continue to disagree on this one.

My consolation is that, unlike Nader, most of his voters seem to have learned the lesson. In 2000 he received about 2.9 million votes. In the next two elections (2004 and 2008) combined he received only about 1.2 million votes. I assume he'll run again in 2012, but he'll have virtually no impact.

which is unrealistic --

You're also, it seems, suggesting that any stealing had only to do with Florida --

while the same kinds of activities we saw in Florida were going on in other states.

And, are you also proposing that Nader had something to do with the Kerry steal in 2004?


The reason Nader received less votes in 2004 is because people were intimidated by the

purposeful scapegoating of him -- and it wasn't the GOP which did it -- it was the

Demcrats --

who, rather than addressing the steals in a stand up way tried to side-step them by

accusing Nader.

For those who didn't want to see that lack of addressing the true situation, it's worked.

And THEN it was stolen! That always amazes me about the 'blame-Nader-for-everything' crowd! Ignoring history, dooms us to repeat it. And we are, our elections are still being tampered with, because nothing was ever done to hold accountable those who will undermine our democracy.

You seem to equate "Nader made a bad decision and it had bad consequences" with "No one other than Nader made any bad decisions that had any bad consequences, so everything that happened was solely Nader's fault." That's a straw man. I'm a proud member of the "Blame Nader" crowd, in the sense of the first statement, but I don't know any real person who's in the "Blame Nader for everything" crowd, in the sense of the second statement.

What's your basis for saying that people who disagree with Nader are ignoring history? Bush received Florida's electoral votes because many Democrats were illegally purged from the voter rolls AND because Nader pulled many progressive votes away from Gore AND because there was cheating on the count AND because the Supreme Court made one of the worst and most blatantly political decisions in its history AND so forth (listing other things that contributed).

The ones who are actually ignoring history are those in the "Blame Nader for nothing" crowd.

Getting back to the OP, about a primary challenge: In the unlikely event that Kucinich or Grayson or some such candidate challenges Obama in the primaries, I will probably vote for the challenger. In the near-certain event that Obama is the Democratic nominee, I can't foresee myself doing anything other than voting for Obama in November, regardless of who might be running on other parties' lines. The difference is that, in the primary, you can vote on principle without risking the election of a Republican.

None of the Naderites has ever given me a good explanation of why Nader didn't run in the Democratic primaries in 2000.

"Damned Liberal Collusionaries" which is almost as bad as Military Intelligence or as any other oxymoron.

Ted Kennedy didn't make Carter lose. There are other reasons why primarying obama isn't a good idea, but saying it would be be akin to what happened in 1980 is illogical. Carter lost because the media, big business, and the establishment turned against him and smeared him big time. That would have happened regardless of Kennedy's primary challenge, which by the way was obviously a douche move.

Ted Kennedy primaried Carter for egotistical personal reasons not because Carter was so terrible and actually deserved it.

President Carter, he too has outline this critical error lesson...that's why he and Ted Kennedy remained estranged politically until Kennedy's death.

look how far Obama has taken us already --

NO MEDICARE FOR ALL -- NO MEDICARE NEGOTIATION ON DRUG PRICES --

TWO MORE TRADE AGREEMENTS -- KORE AND COLOMBIA --

WIRETAPPING CONTINUING --

TWO YEARS OF ATTACKS ON SOCIAL SECURITY WITH COLA'S NOT BEING PAID --

AND THE 'CAT FOOD COMMISSION' --

WE'RE STILL IN TWO WARS BANKRUPTING OUR TREASURY --

OBAMA WORKED TO KEEP THE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH GOING -- ON AND ON !!

How much more ground can we afford to lose with Obama?


For real nuttiness, Obama is still pushing noil drilling -- !!

And a new genertion of nukes -- giving the nuke industry huge loan guarantees!!

Do we really want to move even further to the right with Obama?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It seems very conspiratorial and not really fact based. Its hard to believe that he was blackmailed into admitting he killed that girl, by that power control group.

There is obviously some weird stuff about the official story but I dont know if that makes it all a coverup. Maybe you could explain some of the details a little better.

My recollection is that Carter's #s went up substantially once he had EMK to run against.



>>>The Democratic Primary with an incumbent President only weakens the Party.>>>

http://www.politicususa.com/en/dean-obama-primary

Howard Dean Explains To Democrats Why Primarying Obama Is a Bad Idea
December 12, 2010

snip>

Lately there has been a lot of talk in liberal circles about mounting a primary challenge to President Obama in 2012, but on CBS’ Face The Nation today, Howard Dean explained why primarying Obama is a terrible idea, “The history of people running against Presidents in their own party as the challenger, you lose and then the President is weakened and loses.”

snip>

Dean is correct. Recent history shows that incumbent presidents are almost certainly dead men walking in the general election if they have to fend off a tough primary challenger. In 1992, President George HW Bush had to tussle Pat Buchanan. This was a primary that weakened an already weak incumbent and blew the door wide open for Bill Clinton to roll into the White House. The most famous example is the bloody primary between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy in 1980, which savaged Jimmy Carter, but you can also go as far back as 1968 with Eugene McCarthy’s strong showing against President Lyndon Johnson in New Hampshire that lead to Johnson deciding not to seek another term in office.

"The history of people running against Presidents in their own party as the challenger, you lose and then the President is weakened and loses." - Howard Dean

And then what? Will there ever be another Presidential election? Will the Rs win all the rest of the Presidential elections? If the choice always comes down to the 'lesser of two evils', as some people think 2012 will be, ought one try to do things that could improve future choices, particularly the choice with the D following their name? Imagine what might be possible if people recognized that sometimes they might lose elections and tried to embiggen the value of the sacrifice.

If you keep settling for less, then less and less will be offered. That is how we have come to face an impending election with both major party candidates on the right of Richard Fucking Nixon.

Our Constitution requires a Presidential election every four years come hell or high water, no exceptions. We obviously should use them more wisely than we have been lately.

especially in not going for single payer in his home state --

and he's admitted that!

I really follow Howard Dean myself...he makes a lot of sense...

I want Obama to win the presidency in 2012, BUT I want it to be the Obama I thought I was voting for in 2008.

I want to see Obama have to choose IN PUBLIC between Right-winged conservative stances , AND left-winged progressive,( yeah, verily, LIBERAL, ) stances.
So far I've only seen how he chooses between right-leaning centrists and the loony ultra right.

I pray to any God that might listen, to hear a lefty voice in the race.

of the wonderful speeches and rhetoric. I voted for President Obama, even though I was a Hillary supporter in the primaries - and what did I get? IMHO, Bush* light. No, you're not going to fool me with your pretty speeches again. Please give me a viable progressive alternative to vote for, rather than being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.

never give up...work from within the Party....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

candidate at the moment. Of course, that's all subject to change as time goes on.

vote conscience -- !!

repug, then it's not much of a choice. I just can't see myself throwing away my vote on a third party candidate.

This is a liberal nation and every action by the rightwing GOP/corporates confirms

that reality --

Their primary goals are trying to find ways to shut down information and truth --

because it is so dangerous to their myths!

We have no "free press" because they couldn't tolerate it --

As Gingrich responded to Clinton after 2000 --

"We have to lie because if we didn't, we'd lose!"

President Obama; I don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

tell you this; Bernie Sanders, for example, doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the nomination. This country is center to center-right and the centrists rule the roost. That's a political reality. They will *never* elect an avowed socialist to the presidency. So, stop with the pipe-dreams. Trust me, that's exactly what they are. We need to find a progressive that is center, center-left in order to have a real shot here. Otherwise, we might as well fight to re-elect our current President.

on and on the polls roll out showing just how liberal this nation is --

the idea that it's "centrist" is rw propaganda.

You think they had to control ALL of MSM because people buy their rightwing agenda?


Meanwhile, we need a liberal response to Obama -- without someone like Bernie Sanders

in the race you will hear only right wing proapganda --

We might see the Obama of '08 appear again, but as we know we can't count on anything

that Obama '08 says --


Meanwhile, Obama is still pushing a TON --

T -- New TRADE agreements with Korea and Colombia

O -- New OIL drilling -- !!!

N -- New generation of NUCLEAR REACTORS --



YIKES!!


Think Repugs are going to argue against any of that?

That's all part of the Repug agenda -- !!

You wouldn't hear one word against any of that without someone like Sen. Bernie

Sanders in the race --



And btw, Pelosi confirms on video the morning after '06 --

"Democrats were elected to end the war" --

Pelosi also gave us a clue into Obama when she said ...

"Obama was for a lot of things when he was campaigning that he is no longer for" --

centrist country, and all your hand waving and running in circles about this being a wildly progressive nation based on two poll questions won't change those facts. Time to join the real world - not fantasy land.

Poor people don't pay for campaigns. It's obvious that this government and both parties are totally owned but you are all welcome to remain ignorant and enjoy your hopeachangealiciousness. ...oh yea ...and keep thinking that voting for the lessor of 2 evils is going to really change who owns and controls this country. Only a full scale rebellion has any chance of changing what needs to be changed and there are simply not enough people with the balls, time, money and conviction to do it ...not to mention getting around the government jack booted police/military thugs and spies who will kill us if and when it comes down to it. They will kill us for the corporations and your children will live a harsh life in a destroyed world of poison and death. Have a nice fucking day.

:rant:

:rofl:

None of the possible legitimate progressive candidates are willing to challenge Obama. We need to focus our time, energy, and money on getting as many progressives in congress as possible.

I view Obama as a lost cause. No matter what we do, we are going to have another 4 years with a centrist in the white house. We need to focus that anger and disappointment into drafting progressive challengers to conservadems and right now trying to find a progressive democratic candidate for 2016.

We need to have a legit liberal candidate by 2014 who can show that they are serious and well supported, to make it difficult for any DNC, DLC conservadem to try to get front runner status. I'm telling you right now, that there are going to be some shitty democrats who will want to run in 2016 and if we dont actively start recruiting someone good withing the next few years we could end up with a democratic candidate even more than conservative than Obama.

ruled out a 2012 challenge. Not even sure Kucinich plans a ceremonial run this time around.

I think running for Prez is very demanding and grueling. And who would want to subject themselves and their family to the rigors of a campaign if he or she knew in advance that he or she stood no realistic chance to win?

We need two strong anti-war candidates --

preferably people not closely connected to the Dem Party and Koch Bros./DLC --

nor New Dems, or Blue Dogs or anything else!!

We need candidates who aren't contaminated by corporate money circulating in the

Dem Party -- corporate/fascism is what we're trying to fight against!!


There are tons of democrats we can run on the Dem ticket -- let's go find some!!

Without a strong appearance on the left, Obama will be pulled even further to the right --

as we've seen over and over again in his dealings with GOP!!

enough to actually make such a challenger.

I would like nothing more than to be able to cast my vote in the primary for a credible left-wing challenger to Obama. However, my desire to do so would not, I think, be sufficient to entice any credible challenger into the race.

Any credible challenger has a daunting calculus to consider, not least of which would be his or her prospects in the Dem Party going forward, were the challenge itself to fail.

As for Bernie Sanders, I know he caucuses with the Dems in the Senate. I'm just not sure whether he could run in Democratic primaries, though, as his affiliation is (I believe) 'Independent.' If he runs in the Dem Primary against Obama, Sanders will have my vote!

How often do we hear that?

And that's exactly why we need a strong candidate from the left on the debating

stage --

The things you hear from Sen. Bernie Sanders aren't something you hear from

even any other Dem!!

Obama gets a different VP to run with... A younger than Biden Progressive . Biden will not be viable for 2016....so we really need to look there now. VP experience is a major plus for 2016 verses full Primary search.

Ala Ted Kennedy in 1980, or even Buchanan to Bush in 1992. Only potential sideshows.

thing to avoid is the Dems we already have who are contaminated by corporate

$$ and lobbyists --

We need two strong anti-war candidates -- Sen. Bernie Sanders can run on a Dem ticket --

Tom Hayden as VP --

and there are many, many more notable democrats who could do the same!

what an interesting debate that would be.

History shows us that all a leftist opponent does is weaken the eventual Democratic winner for his fight in the general election.

that would be so helpful.. :crazy:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Now do you have a bridge for me somewhere besides that one in Brooklyn?

Michele Bachmann has a better chance of winning the White House than liberals do of putting up a credible candidate to take on Pres. Obama.

haha

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thinking that it would be a good thing to primary our President shows a singular lack of understanding politics. Doing that is political suicide because it tells the world that we, the Democrats are so unhappy with our President that we're willing to vote for someone else. What's good about that?

Doesn't make much sense --

We have a HUGE liberal voting bloc -- we should use it to create real CHANGE --

to pick up the party and what's left of it after the Koch.Bros/DLC and move it

back to the left --

You can't do that by kowtowing to the GOP and corporations!!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1102793&mesg_id=1106959

anymore than teabaggers'. Centrists are the majority whether we like it or not.

that certainly isn't in any way "centrist" --

this is a liberal nation and the fact that the rightwing has to control every

bit of information, every government agency, is proof of that!



Cripes even Catholics wanted single payer -- and whether government or private they

wanted a full range of reproductive services included -- including abortion for simple

"choice" -- and when Latinos/Latinas are included this ranges from 73% support to 83% --

with wide support for neo-natal care, including abortion.

Once again, what the public wanted was ignored as Pelosi met with US Catholic Bishops and

took a phone call from Rome -- while in the background Stupak was being kowtowed to!

Like it or not if the Republicans win we're fucking finished as a Democracy. Like it or not the Democratic party as it is today is all we have right now. To vote for a primary candidate is to vote for a Republican. And I don't see a single Republican candidate who is better than Obama. Not one.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

time and money challenging him.

I'd to see a Sanders, Feingold, Kucinich type become Prez, but it's not in the cards. Unless a bonafide miracle takes place.

I held my nose and voted for Prez O in 2008, and I'll be holding my nose and closing my eyes while kicking myself self in the ass when I vote for him again in 2012.

I really actually thought things might change right after he was elected, and that maybe I was wrong about Obama being a corporatist.

How naive of me.

Now, Health Care Insurers just announced record profits again, and most sick people can't afford to go get medical help.

Oil companies made record profits again this year, and gas is at a record high.

And with all these companies making gazillions in profits, there has been no significant increase in jobs.

We're fucked, and we are being held hostage, but we absolutely not afford a republican president now.

If we move any farther to the right than , and we'll all be drowning in the Atlantic.

Mr. Obama's OBL Bounce will fade and people will realize that they are paying $4 a gallon for gas... and making $4 an hour at dead end jobs.

Mr. Obama has supplied NO VISION, no plan, no leadership... but I digress.


The real issue here.. is .."what leader can provide a plan to get us out of this horrrible Republican Depression we are in"?

:thumbsup:

So no, I don't buy anything you're selling.

But that's okay - many, many here have been writing off Obama since November 2007.

:eyes:

:eyes:

And you've just shined light on your stupidity upthread. It all makes sense now.

:eyes:

Who appointed DLC/Rahm Emmanuel to the top position in the White House?

Who appointed the Wall Street insiders to their administration?

Who has kept on Geithner -- Bernanke -- ?

Who kept on Gates - ?

And, who trampled our best opportunity yet for MEDICARE FOR ALL with back room deals

with Big Pharma and the private Health Care industry?

Who moved to extend the tax cuts for the rich?

Who has now moved the new trade agreements set up by GOP/W -- with Korea and Colombia?

OBAMA --

I don't have a clue? Try addressing some of that -- !!

Who's appointed two of the most liberal justices in the last 40 years? Who did more to advance healthcare reform than any president in American history? Who's said he will not cut social security or medicare? Who signed into law the biggest stimulus in modern American history? Who signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? The Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act? The widely successful Car Allowance Rebate System back in 2009? The Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act? Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act? Who reformed Wall Street? Who pushed for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

Yes, all Republican ideas, right? Because we know Pres. Bush would've done all of that and more.

:eyes:

Like I said - you don't have a clue.

And he did that AFTER the Democratic Congress voted for it NOT TO BE DONE!!

Pelosi purposefully ignored it --


The two liberals replaced two liberals and no difference to the court ... however,

should we have expected anything but a Democrat appointing two liberals?

What would the reaction have been had he not?


Who did more to advance healthcare reform than any president in American history?

Agree - Obama did plenty ...

Here's DLC/Rahm Emmanuel explaining what was accomplished by Obama -- and why business

should be GRATEFUL to him -- !!



Ramh .... crowing about preserving "private health care industry" ... business s/b grateful!

DU 8/12/10

”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the overhaul of health care

preserved the private delivery system;

the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18...



And then there are the NY Times reports on back room deals with Big Pharma and private health

care industry --


WASHINGTON — Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.

In response,the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insur...


and ...


Not to worry, Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, told the hospital lobbyists, according to White House officials and lobbyists briefed on the call. The White House was standing behind the deal, Mr. Messina told them, capping the industry’s costs at a maximum of $155 billion over 10 years in exchange for its political support.

Lobbyists for both the drug and hospital industries say that, as early as June, White House officials directed them to work out cost-saving deals with Mr. Baucus’s committee.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?_r=1


Why would we expect a Democratic president NOT to sign the Lily Ledbetter Fair Play Act?

Why would we expect a Democratic president to attack Social Security or Medicare?

We're supposed to count those as blessings when he performs as a Democratic president should?


Who signed into law the biggest stimulus in modern American history?

In fact, economists told Obama that what he was proposing was only 20% of what was necessary --

and we can see from the huge delay in any recovery that was true. PLUS, Obama settled for even

LESS than what he asked for, as usual!

"The biggest stimulus in history?" -- No -- it was pitiful and we're still suffering for it!

The New Deal was the largest ever stimulus in history!!


Who reformed Wall Street?

Reformed? Goldman Sacks is pretty much a member of the administration!


Obviously, what you want to suggest is that anything that a Democratic president SHOULD be doing

should be counted as a heroic event -- and any thing that he shouldn't be doing should be

ignored --

Think we both have to move on!!

Bye --

Pres. Obama has not been a perfect president nor have I agreed with every decision he's made.

But unlike you, I am a rational person who looks at an entire body of work and does not make vapid, pathetic and baseless hyperboles.

You do. You said Pres. Obama adopted the Republican agenda - show me the last Republican who's done the things I listed and I'll readily accept what you're pushing.

But you and I both know you can't do that because Obama has pushed a Democratic agenda - not a Republican one - for most his presidency.

Your post works, if your original point was that Pres. Obama wasn't some extreme leftist.

But that's not what you said. You said he adopted the Republican agenda. Okay - show me the last Republican to push through a stimulus as large as Obama's. Don't come back at me with this petty bullshit that it wasn't big enough because that is not what we're discussing here. What Republican president pushed that much domestic spending? In fact - show me the last Democratic president do so. Here's a hint, it's not Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK or Harry S Truman.

That's quite a stretch.

Show me where Pres. Obama has adopted the Republican agenda on gay rights, women's rights, environmental rights and minority rights?

C'mon, get with it. I haven't seen this pathetic of an argument since I got into it with someone who said Sarah Palin and enough experience back in 2008 to be president.

Or that Dems were pining to have Alan Simpson in charge of Social Security decisions?

Pushing a "Democratic agenda" doesn't mean trampling MEDIOCARE FOR ALL --

Doesn't mean making back room deals with Big Pharma --

and it certainly doesn't mean extending tax cuts for the rich!

Nor does it mean putting Repug foxes in charge of government programs/agencies --

yet we've had an endless parade of Wall Street and Repug recycled into this administration.

Not to mention the first choice -- the Koch Bros. Funded DLC choice of Rahm Emmanuel -- !!

Show me Repugs who could have done what Rahm Emmanuel/Obama and Arne Duncan have done to

Public Education!

Neither did I know that the "Cat Food" Commission was on the Dem agenda? Could have sworn

that was on the GOP agenda -- !! And, last I looked Sen. Alan Simpson was one of the most

notorious and rabid of Repugs always gunning for Social Security!

Again, we were very close if not in a Depression -- described that way by Obama and then

scrubbed -- and what he did in response was insufficient. Less than 20% of what was necessary

according to the economists advising him -- and then he settled for even less.


If you want to continue to describe Obama as the lesser of evils over Repugs -- go for it!

But we're looking for a Democratic president not a Repug lite --

And that's why we need a liberal response to Obama in 2012 --





PS: "An entire body of work" -- isn't that usually the summation for an actor?

:eyes:

and move to the center for the general election. If he were primaried, he would do that and Progressives would buy it (again). He might be more progressive during a second term, but the question is whether or not to trust him.

is advancing neo-liberals policies not FDR or LBJ social democracy economics, foreign nor domestic.

I had an epiphany over the death of Osama Bin Laden. Aside: Thought OBL dead for years and more a marketing plan than a threat.

POTUS Obama may have well watched the death of "OBL" by helmet cam but, given the bureaucracy of the DoD and Intel agencies, has to accept other's words as "truth". POTUS Obama is doing well considering the circumstances even though I more often than not am appalled by my idealism of the Golden Rule.

Information in media and released by government press release is almost by definition propaganda or at least a strong target market bias (that is cultivated in different "fields" of human groups). The mix of fact, news, and propaganda the condition's humans and their response but we are still individuals.

Complete and utter bullshit.

So, he continues to seek the votes of the right and expects us to still vote for him.

So did LBJ and Humphrey.

Humphrey lost because he did not seperate himself from Johnson's war policy.

That was the overriding issue that year & the only area when they catered to the right. Look at LBJ's Civil Rights legislation as well as everything else under the "Great Society" umbrella - no way did he (or Humphrey) cater to the right in those areas.

Obama could learn a few things from LBJ & HHH.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

he needs to fight the right wing machine in the general election.

Obama has absolutely NO WORRIES AT ALL about losing the nomination, so a primary challenge will not "pull him to the left".

It will only redound to the GOP's benefit by eroding his support during the primaries.


It's a waste of time and no good thing will come of it.

But I really don't see the benefit here. In fact, I think it's pretty stupid.

The best option is to support him all the way through the November 2012 elections and then hope and pray he finally starts to fight for progressive causes once he gets a second term.

:rofl:

:(

-- tweet by @joshtpm after the midterm election 2010.

Josh's :sarcasm: is particularly relevant and funny in light of this kind of hand-wringing. Keeping the Senate in the 2010 election means, in fact, this was not by a long shot "the worst midterm defeat for the Democrats since 1938!" ...



There will be no primary challenge for President Obama and it seems some best get used to it.

They have their tax cuts, their privatization, and their conversation we need to slash domestic spending. It's all Reaganomics and Milton Freidman.

There needs to be a movement that supports labor and mainstreet. We're not getting anywhere but further and further right. We're paying for it dearly.

::insert obligatory facepalm image here::

"executing" OBL

:hide:

"You'll have to hold my feet to the fire"

            --Barack Obama, 2008

I was getting worried.

Sid