I remember my folks talking about how some democrats were wanting to primary Jimmy Carter.

[vanbean]

They were against it. My mom was saying that it would be terrible, and that it was never done. I bet she would be for it today. I know I am. Why can't we have a president who will fight for democratic values? I can't imagine a democratic president who would consider cutting SS. Can you imagine how Howard Dean would fight?

[gateley]

1. Yesterday Howard Dean said at this point, he's in agreement with

what Obama's doing -- they're not talking about reducing benefits, they're talking about reducing EXPENSES and Dean is in agreement with that. I think we need to see what comes out of the WH before we decide to primary him.

It was hearing Dean that made me realize I wasn't getting the whole story - had been assuming it was benefits that were on the chopping block.

[MadHound]

8. Well, frankly we don't know exactly what is on the chopping block in any deal,

The transparency surrounding this entire mess is lacking. But one thing that we do know is that an "adjustment" to COLA payments is on the block, which means that yes, benefits are threatened.

[gateley]

10. Well I'm thinking that Pelosi didn't budge in the meeting this

morning, that Obama had hoped to come out clicking his heels for the statement, but instead it was a whole lot of nothing.

[MadHound]

12. I gave up putting my faith in Pelosi a long time ago,

And now that she and the Dems are in the minority in the House, the best that she can do is hot air, especially considering that there are still around ten blue dogs in the House that don't care what she thinks.

[gateley]

15. No, she/they can stop a bill from passing. That's a LOT they

can do.

I was disenchanted w/Pelosi at one point, but grew to respect her a lot as the time went on. I still think very highly of her and don't get that queasy feeling in my stomach wondering if she'll cave on a given issue. She's tough and she's very very smart.

IMO, natch. :&

[Bluerthanblue]

13. Howard Dean knows painfully well

how the media works.

As for a primary challenge, I cast my first presidential vote for Pres. Carter in '76 and my second for him in '80. 12 years of Reagan Bush did more harm than many people realize. There were some things Pres. Clinton did which I didn't support and couldn't fathom, but I wouldn't have not voted or voted for any one else either time. 2000 and 2004 .. :rolleyes: ...

I intend to vote and work to re-elect Pres. Obama. No President will ever meet my ideals, but one things for sure, no Republican president will even come remotely close. My children and grandchildren deserve a chance.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

14. Howard is wrong. He's trying to be supportive of the President

as he has been on other occasions but he's still wrong. Look at what Dean Baker has to say about this only reducing "costs" bs:

On Using the Chained CPI for Social Security Cost of Living Adjustments
by Dean Baker - MonthlyReview
7/8/11

<snip>

There has been considerable discussion of basing the Social Security cost of living adjustment (COLA) on the Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U) as a "painless" way of generating large budget savings. This view reflects serious confusion about what the switch to the C-CPI-U involves. (The switch would also lead to higher tax revenue by slowing the rise in the bracket cutoffs.)

While it is often claimed that this switch will make the COLA more accurate, this is not clear. What is certain is that the switch would lower benefits. The research on the C-CPI-U shows that the switch would reduce benefits by roughly 0.3 percentage points a year compared with the baseline. This means that after someone has been retired for 10 years, their benefits would be 3 percent lower. After 20 years of retirement, their benefits would be 6 percent lower and people living into their 90s and collecting benefits for more than 30 years would see a drop in benefits of more than 9 percent. This might be especially difficult since the oldest of the elderly also tend to be the poorest.

This is a benefit cut that would hit current retirees, most of whom are not especially affluent. More than 90 percent of beneficiaries have non-Social Security incomes of less than $40,000. In addition, the Joint Committee on Taxation recently estimated that by 2021, 69 percent of the higher tax revenue gained from switching to the C-CPI-U would come from taxpayers making less than $100,000. By contrast, President Obama has set a $250,000 floor on the households whom he would subject to tax increases.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1441934

[SlimJimmy]

2. I was one of those Democrats that called for President Carter to step

aside and let a more viable candidate run. He didn't, and the rest is history.

[former9thward]

3. Those "some democrats" were Ted Kennedy and he did it.

I don't know why she would say it is never done when McCarthy primaried Johnson in 1968. It is done frequently.

[geardaddy]

5. I thought Johnson didn't run in 68.

Wasn't that Humphrey?

[hifiguy]

9. It was assumed that LBJ was going to be the nominee

until McCarthy got 40+% in the NH primary. That was the last straw for a tired, demoralized and exhausted LBJ, who went to his grave regretting his catastrophic mistakes regarding Vietnam. He traded TPTB the war in return for the Great Society, never realizing what a disaster the war would turn out to be.

McCarthy would never have won the nomination or the general election, but RFK likely would have won both. Actually it would have been slightly more difficult for him to gain the nomination than the presidency - he would have crushed Nixon. What might have been....

[geardaddy]

11. Thanks HF Guy!

[madinmaryland]

4. And what are the results when an incumbant is primaried. Nothing good.

[dawg]

7. I think that may be a case of correlation and not causation.

Candidates get primaried because they are weak in the first place. It's no surprise they go on to lose in the general.

[Bluerthanblue]

16. how many incumbents have been primaried and gone on to win?

I believe the most effective strategy of the right is to divide and conquer us. They've been pretty danm effective at that my entire lifetime.

[PATRICK]

6. On the charisma front alone

It COULD be done with Teddy Kennedy, long covering the TV screens with comments and critiques. He did not really want that office too much and the baggage(good and bad) as too heavy. And Reagan's fake charisma was nurtured in the wings and even some unexciting GOP pols with a natural corporate edge.

The only things keeping this from collapse is that Obama himself has an eclipsing political gift, whatever the actions, and that the GOP is batshit crazy and devoid of charisma. It is also criminally responsible for the bad, promising a completion of the same, but the hinge remains on the single person of Obama. Obama thinks that is his major good thing. The GOP knows that is the only real obstacle to their full power.

No one man should promise hope then turn it into simple blackmail against the common good. One has the apprehension that a singular defeat absurdly menaces the fate of mankind. That apprehension should not even exist. In America, it is justified.