Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

An opinion in favor of Democratic Primary Challenges

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 09:40 PM
Original message
An opinion in favor of Democratic Primary Challenges
Edited on Tue Sep-20-11 09:49 PM by txlibdem
Like it or not, there are millions of people who are not happy with The Capitulator In Chief. When the Stimulus Bill was almost as much tax cuts as it was anything else, when his debt limit "compromise" gave the Repukes 98% of what they wanted, when the big banks and wall street criminals are not only walking free on the streets (not in jail) but were given 700 Billion dollars, allowed to keep their un-earned bonuses, plus later they were given an open line of credit for 12 Trillion (some say 16 Trillion) in loans at 0.5% interest -- which they are using to invest overseas and purchase government bonds that pay 1.5%, which means they make Billions on money they don't have. How F**ing nice.

Don't worry: I'm just as disappointed with the congress. Their so-called "shovel-ready projects" turned out to be nothing but bottom-of-the-barrel-of-pork projects. I have a feeling that too much of the stimulus was wasted. I darn sure know the tax cuts to the rich did absolutely zero to create jobs here in America.

I want President Obama to have to stand before the American People and answer for every dime of tax cuts to the rich, every no bid contract, every penny of wasted taxpayer dollars thrown at the swine in the top 5% (in hopes they'll "be reasonable").

Primary debates will help President Obama heal some of the wounds he has created with the millions of Americans whose homes were foreclosed on since he took office, at a time when the administration was bending over backwards to help the rich and Wall Street... NOT ONE DIME for these families. And leaving the refinance program 100% completely under the control of the banks... how stupid was that???

I don't like to write novels so I'll stop there. The last word: if he doesn't answer for his own actions during Democratic Primary Debates then he won't have a chance to get his point across when it's time for the actual Presidential debates.

The proposal, which has been endorsed by over 45 distinguished leaders, seeks to have a slate of six candidates run against President Obama, each representing a field in which Obama has never clearly staked a progressive claim or where he has drifted toward the corporatist right.

“Without debates by challengers inside the Democratic Party’s presidential primaries, the liberal/majoritarian agenda will be muted and ignored,” said Ralph Nader.

...

A letter (full text below) is being sent to a list of distinguished elected officials, civic leaders, prominent members of academia and the NGO community who represent the fields of labor, poverty, military and foreign policy, health insurance and care, the environment, financial regulation, consumer protection, and civil, political and human rights/empowerment.

The list of potential candidates also includes progressive democrats who have held national and state office and have fought for progressive reforms.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/09/19-7


/edited to add the source quote. Sorry for the omission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. Unrec.
I don't believe you. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
22. What satisfaction do folks get out of these...
type of post? They know as we all do they are not true so why even say it? Is it because they feel it bolsters their DU "Progressive" street cred? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Rec. because Democratic primary challenges have worked so well in the past.
Oops, I guess that's an UnRec instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Only promoted by those who wish to sow seeds of cynical division within our party.
Edited on Tue Sep-20-11 09:48 PM by jefferson_dem
But the OP knew that already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. No. & recommend. Nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
35. I would argue that it is Obama
with his center right leanings that has "sown the seeds of cynical division".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
4. Well
"like it or not" that argument sucks!

The President's policies will save lives and he also saved the auto industry.

UAW and General Motors tentative agreement: Good American jobs at a good American company

<...>

"In these uncertain economic times, we were able to win a tentative agreement with GM that guarantees good American jobs at a good American company. Our members made great sacrifices to save GM when the auto industry and the American economy were on the brink of collapse. As a result of this tentative agreement, UAW members will share in the company's success," said UAW President Bob King.

"Two years ago GM and Chrysler were hanging by a thread when President Obama stepped in and invested federal funds to help turn the companies and the U.S. auto industry around, protect the auto supplier base and keep good-paying jobs in America," King added.

<...>


"When the Stimulus Bill was almost as much tax cuts as it was anything else"

So you're criticizing the President for not helping the American people while denigrating the stimulus that helped millions of low- and middle-income Americans?

Senator Franken: The importance of the Reocovery Act

M. President, I rise today to discuss something I regret. I regret that Democrats have allowed the word "stimulus" to become a dirty word, one we avoid using. The President spoke a few weeks ago about his new plan to invest $50 billion in new infrastructure-projects that will improve safety and transportation. But he never once mentioned the words "stimulus" or "recovery." And that was probably a smart move on his part. Because frankly, the stimulus has gotten a bad rap. But this is a reputation that it absolutely does not deserve.

There are members of this body who opposed the Recovery Act because they thought it wouldn't work. It didn't jibe with their theory of economics, or how the government should address recessions. And that's fine. They were entitled to vote the way they thought best. But now, a year and a half later, we've been able to see the economic effects of the Recovery Act. And to deny that it has been a success is simply ignoring the data.

A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans believe that the stimulus bill either did nothing to help the economy, or made it even worse. The economic data, however, indicate otherwise. How do we explain this disparity between what people believe and what the data support?

Members of the American public don't form opinions out of thin air. They engage themselves-they watch the news, they listen to speeches by elected officials. And one would expect that watching the news and listening to your elected officials would be a decent way to form an opinion about something. But unfortunately, the talking heads on the news shows, along with many elected officials, having been feeding the American public half-truths about the Recovery Act. And that, frankly, is cheating the American people out of the facts.

Today I'd like to go through some of these claims made by the talking heads and elected officials, and then follow it up with some data. And that way the American people can use the facts to decide for themselves.

<...>

Another vital component of the Recovery Act that is often overlooked is its expanded funding for unemployment insurance that helped keep 3.3 million people, including 1 million children, out of poverty in 2009. Another overlooked but critical program in the Recovery Act is the funding for Head Start. The $2 billion allocation preserved Head Start and Early Head Start programming for 64,000 children across the country-over 900 in Minnesota alone. These programs are helping the most vulnerable kids in our communities.
It's simple-economic analysis suggests that the Recovery Act boosted demand, created millions of jobs, kept families in their homes, and helped the economy start growing again.

Let me tell you what I love about being a Senator. As opposed to being a candidate for Senate. I think most of my colleagues can relate to this. When you're a candidate, you're speaking mainly to your own party. When you're trying to get the nomination, when you're getting out the vote. But as a Senator, you talk to everyone. I travel all over the state of Minnesota and meet with mayors and city council members, and county commissioners, and small businesses.

And everywhere I go, they thank me for the Recovery Act. They thank me for the teachers and firefighters, for the Workforce Investment Act funds, which they used to train people for jobs. For the highway extension or the wastewater plant or the funds for rural broadband or for weatherization of public buildings.

In fact, Michael Gunwald, writing for Time Magazine, said this: "the Recovery Act is the most ambitious energy legislation in history, converting the Energy Department into the world's largest venture-capital fund. It's pouring $90 billion into clean energy, including unprecedented investments in a smart grid; energy efficiency; electric cars; renewable power from the sun, wind and earth; cleaner coal; advanced biofuels; and factories to manufacture green stuff in the U.S. The act will also triple the number of smart electric meters in our homes, quadruple the number of hybrids in the federal auto fleet and finance far-out energy research through a new government incubator modeled after the Pentagon agency that fathered the Internet."

A few weeks ago I heard a prominent conservative talking head on one of the Sunday news shows describe the Recovery Act this way. He said:

If I pay my neighbor $1,000 to dig a hole in my backyard and fill it up again and he pays me $1,000 to dig a hole in his backyard and fill it up again, according to the national income statistics, that's a $2,000 increment to GDP and two jobs have been created. The American people understand, however, there's no real wealth created in this kind of transfer payment.

How out of touch. How downright offensive. And yet this is why so many Americans believe that the Recovery Act hasn't created any jobs or just created jobs for bureaucrats.

You know, I worry that my speech today is too little, too late. I worry that many Americans have already formed their opinion about the Recovery Act-based on the inaccuracies they hear from beltway pundits or from their elected officials.

But, I challenge the talking heads and the elected officials to find the Spencers, Sheilas, Cecils, and Randys in their state-go out and watch them work. Or talk to a teacher in the classroom or a cop on the beat. They're not digging and filling holes in their neighbors' backyards. They're doing skilled, hard, necessary work-rebuilding our roads, teaching our kids-and getting paid for it. With their paychecks, they buy food for their families-which generates more demand. And that's an economic recovery in the making.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. So what does that make you? A rightie?
NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Don't turn it back on me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. Elected Democrats need to know that there are consequences for going hard right
Demanding to slash Social Security benefits? Wanting to raise Medicare eligibility to 67? Who ever heard of such insanity from a Democrat?

We need to end 18 years of "who the @$#% else ya gonna vote for, chumps?!" Democratic strategy that has moved our country to to fringe right, and which loses elections. Until elected Democrats understand that this crap won't be tolerated, they'll keep it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smarmie Doofus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
8. I agree. Obama w/o a primary challenge is a dead duck in the general.
Only a primary challenge would allow him a chance to un-muddle his muddle-headedness and to.... at long last .....fashion some sort of definitive rationale for his reelection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosco T. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
9. and my response...
... Here's your sign.


(thanks to Bill Engvall)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. phft. unrec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
13. Wow, I thought "bashing" was wrong but criticism was fine.
Looks like all the bashing is coming from the people who criticize bashing.

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
14. Can we request a separate forum for these "primary" posts?
They're becoming a genre unto themselves. They all get unrecc'ed down to serious negative territory. They're contentious, delusional, and possibly disruptive, and pretty soon they have to be considered as being against the forum rules: that is, proselytizing against the Democratic nominee.

Because yes, he will be the Democratic nominee. There will be no (legitimate or serious) primary challenger.

Russ Feingold today said that progressives must unite to reelect this president, and in making that call he laid out many of the things this president has done that we should be cheering.

Let's create our own little Israel/Palestine forum for the primary challenge posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. You can unrec 'em all you want, but all these posts are attempting to telll you some truth...
...about what's happening out here among the Democratic
Party faithful (and it ain't pretty). Democratic politicians from
all over the map are busy trying to figure out how to personally
position themselves far away from Obama because his coat-
tails in 2012 are shaping up to be highly negative.

Ignore all this if you wish, but ignore it at your peril.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. It may be your truth, but it's not necessarily THE truth
It's very vain to think that you represent the Democratic faithful. I am a progressive Democrat, Russ Feingold is a progressive Democrat, 80% of progressive Democratics support the president.

The main place where Obama does not hold sway is among the conservative Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. And "80%" won't be enough to get Obama re-elected.
But keep slinging insults ("vain") if it helps gird
you for what will happen in 2012.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. You mean 80% of the 20% of Democrats who self-identify as liberal
That's a tiny number, and it's not even clear how many of them voted last time around.

It sounds as if you would be very happy to see this president lose the next election. I'm sure you sincerely believe this country would be better off without him. Good luck with President Romney/Perry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. And meanwhile, how's ge doing among say, "independents"?
Would I be happy to see Obama lose? Not at all.
But my happiness has no effect on whether he will
lose or not, and right now, he's still in course to lose
big.

We still have the opportunity to not take the entire
Party down with him.

Or maybe we can get "Candidate Obama" back; he
was a lot more popular with many factions than is
President Obama.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. I can't argue with people who might vote against their own interests or who
are essentially conservative in outlook, or who are just plain confused. It's happened plenty of times before (Reagan Democrats, for instance). If people want to vote for a Republican, they can knock themselves out. I certainly can't do anything to disabuse them of their foolishness. I can only address those who claim to be progressive but enable regressive power to ascend.

As for Obama taking the entire party down with him: that is utter bull. The Democratic Congress is doing a fine job of that itself. The fate of individual representatives and senators does not lie fully in the president's hands. Democrats in Congress have a lower aggregate approval rating than the president, and Republicans have a an even lower approval than them. And which Democrats do we worry about taking down? The conservatives like Ben Nelson or Jim Webb who are the main cause of decent legislation not passing? (Witness the American Jobs Act: if it fails it will be on their shoulders, not the president's). Or liberal senators? Do you think Russ Feingold lost his last election or that Massachusetts elected Scott Brown because Obama wasn't LIBERAL enough? That doesn't make one iota of sense.

We are living in a very screwed up time, where panic and backlash are the main drivers of the national conversation, voting, and Congressional action (or inaction). Staying home out of dissatisfaction is not going to teach anyone a lesson: it will only ensure right-wing ascension. We all need to put our gripes aside and come down to a basic choice.THose who deny that making that choice is valid are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Thus it has ever been.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #21
31. Funny, because where I live Dems are moving to the right as well
Of course, they keep any association with the president at arm's length, because their shift to the right is waaayyyy different than Obama's:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
15. Unrec
These posts are not progressive or proactive. They are simply divisive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YellowCosmicSun Donating Member (383 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
17. Nader be with you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
18. Unrec
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
19. Another spam blast for the Nader primary challenge. Unrec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
20. Unrec. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
styersc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
23. I am a progressive liberal who has not been shy about bitching.
I was also an early proponent of a primary challenger.

I have, however, changed course and believe it would be a better strategy to work for re-election, make ourselves open and vocal in our issues and upon re-election make sure that we remind Pres. Obama that we played a role and have a seat at the table.

If you think "punch the hippy" (Cite R. Maddow) was an uncomfrotable trend during this presidency, when we were supposed to be allies, imagine how agregious it can become if we are at open odds. Reality is that a battle can only bring us both down and I'm more interested in progress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blkmusclmachine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
25. Nader can go get bent. But I am for primarying. No one should get a free pass,
especially no DEM (or "DEM") who has been (intentionally or otherwise) torpedoing the DEM Party Plank and every faction of the DEM Party Base since putting foot in the Oval Office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
27. So what Dem of stature will take on President Obama? None.
Edited on Wed Sep-21-11 10:21 AM by WI_DEM
It would be a waste of time to have somebody go into every state railing away against the president when we need to be building a campaign organization to re-elect the president in a very tough electoral environment. Teddy Kennedy certainly did not do Jimmy Carter any favors in 1980.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. That's the bottom line that no one wants to admit...
Every time I see these primary threads from some columnist or blogger, I simply ask WHO is a legit leftist alternative interested in running?

The response has always been silence, making these primary threads nothing more than masturbation...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
33. How exciting!!!!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
34. Why don't you start with your state, which has gifted the nation w/Bush II and Rick Perry so far?
Edited on Wed Sep-21-11 04:33 PM by ClarkUSA
When you're successful at electing a liberal Democratic Governor that satisfies your lofty standards, then get back to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
36. And someone will ask ...
why people are so mean to the people who merely reasonably request a primary. ( see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1979587&mesg_id=1979587) Well, it's because of shrieking, hyperbolic OPs like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-22-11 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
37. Thank you all for your responses, some of which were enlightening, some humorous, most just a waste
All I can say is that we have a lot of posters who have very short memories or, perhaps, are just too busy to keep up with the exact details of the bills he has passed. The latter confuses me because all it takes is a 2-second GOOGLE search for each of the bills.

My takeaway is that there are folks out there who HAVEN'T lost their homes, whose hours have NOT been cut, who HAVEN'T lost their jobs, whose factory HASN'T packed up and moved to China even though the US Government (under the Obama Administration) is *still* giving them tax credits to do so -- after over 2 years of being in office.

It's a whole lot of "I got mine and to heck with those stupid suckers who don't." And it's also the GOP strategy of so-called "grass roots" organizations putting out the message: hey, he's the lesser of two evils. Even though the GOP knows darn well that he's putty in their hands and they pull each and every one of his strings.

I look at actions, not pretty speeches. I look at results, not symbols (he's the first Black President... so? I'm the first person in my family to be eligible for food stamps).

Actions: any "Democratic" President who uses in any speech the possibility of cutting Social Security and / or Medicare is NOT a Democrat, not a true Democrat anyway. It will be very enlightening to listen to the multi-millionaire Professor Obama explain his lack of action to save families' homes while simultaneously throwing truckloads of cash at big banks, corporations and the rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-22-11 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
38. My problem(s) with a primary challenger next year are as follows:
1. NOBODY has announced a Democratic primary challenge other than Randall Terry. :eyes: At the moment, a Presidential primary challenge is nothing more than an academic exercise.
2. President Obama is facing a tough electorate next year because of the economy, which is still a mess and he's got plenty other things to deal with while he will simultaneously be running for re-election. He doesn't need any distractions.
3. He hasn't lost the confidence of the vast majority of the party. He has the support of 80% of Dems and the other 20% will likely vote for him as well when push comes to shove if for no other reason than they don't want to help put a Republican in the WH in 2013. Do we really need a primary for the 20% of the party that doesn't "approve" of him (keeping in mind that this includes some CONSERVATIVE Dems too whom wouldn't support anybody more to the left of Obama)?
4. President Obama is the WRONG target. If we want him to sign more progressive legislation, he needs to have a progressive Congress to send it to him in the first place. He was able to do some good things with a Democratic Congress that was relatively moderate overall. I bet he could do even more with a more progressive one, as well as one in which the Republicans can't exercise a near permanent veto over everything. The bottom line is that replacing Obama with Clinton, Sanders, Dean, Kucinich or whomever isn't going to drastically change anything if they have to work with a Republican House, a completely Republican-led Congress, or even a more moderate Democratic-majority Congress to get anything done.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-22-11 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
39. Lost me after the first bullshit insult.
Unrec, but keep trying to catapult the FUD out there.

There will be no primary challenger, only squeaky voices from the fringe carping about their single issue that they are angry over.

Every Democratic president gets sniped at from the left fringe that is never happy with, well, anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC